Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology

Robert Lewis Dabney Document Public Domain

Source

Author
Robert Lewis Dabney
Attribution
Robert Lewis Dabney
Edition
1878 Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis second edition; Internet Archive OCR.
Source
Internet Archive (archive.org)
Rights
Public Domain (Public domain)
Checksum
sha256:0dd70ebc7198bdc01926d27e8cb0e369ae2dad0737e7678241e50c8618200f11
Princeton Theology Old School Presbyterian Rl Dabney Internet Archive Public Domain Systematic Theology Polemics

Published before the 1931 public-domain cutoff. Local source is Internet Archive metadata plus OCR text from a public-domain scan; no Monergism, CCEL, OLL, publisher-reprint, printdisabled-only, or curated restricted file is ingested.

Lecture III Evolution

Theory stated. Tendency Atheistic. Theory not proved. Does not weaken Teleological Arg. pp. 26-38.

Lecture IV Divine Attributes

How many does Reason infer? Eternity. Unity. Spirituality. Simphcity. Immensity. Infinitude. Immutability. - - - - - ' pp. 38-45.

Lecture VI Materialism

Attempted Use of Doctrine of "Correlation of Forces." Theory of Phys. B sis of Life. Connection between Materialism and Atheism. Moral Results of the latter. pp. 55 64-

Lecture VIII Sources of our Thinking

Important to Theol. Question of Innate Ideas. Primitive Ideas must be Granted. Metaphysical Skepticism. Tests of a Primary Truth. Axioms are Such. Spirituality, Identity, Reahty of the Objective, Cause for every Effect are Intuitively seen. Belief not Derived from Association, or Experience. True Doctrine of Causation. The Final Cause. '^'^■1^-^\'

Lecture IX Sources of our Thinking, {continued.)

All Judgments Intuitive and Necessary, if Valid. Origin of our Moral Judgments. Selfish System of Hobbes. UtiUtarian Ethics. Selfish System of Paley. Sentiment- al Theory of Dr. A. Smith. -------- pp. 94-110.

Lecture X Ethical Theories [continued.) ■

True Theory of Moral Distinction and Obligation. Moral Judgments are Rational. The Moral Emotion. Schemes of Hutcheson, Jouffroy and Brown. Suprem- acy and Authority of Conscience. Essentials to Moral Responsibility. pp. 1 10- 1 19.

Lecture XL Free Agency and the Will

Man's Free Agency denied by Theological Fatalists and Sensualistic Necessita- rians. Freedom and Necessity defined. Theory of Indifferency of the Will. Theoiy of Certainty, and Efficiency of Motives. Motives Defined. True Doctrine Sus- tained and Objections Answered. ------- pp. 1 19-132.

Lecture XIV Divine Attributes, (continued.)

Scriptural account of Knowledge and Wisdom. Meaning of His Simple, His Free, and His Mediate Knowledge. Free Knowledge of the Future Acts of Free Apents. Scriptural Evidence of His Will and Power. Omnipotent over Free Agents. Distinction between Decretive and Preceptive Will. Antecedent and Consequent Will. His Will Absolute. Is God's Will the sole source of Moral Distinc- tions'? PP- 154-164-

Lecture XV God's Moral Attributes

Absolute and Relative, Distributive and Punitive Justice Defined and Proved

from Scripture. God's goodness. Its Relations to His Love, His Grace and His

Mercy. Scriptural Proofs. Truth and Faithfulness Defined and Established. God's

Holiness. Defined and Proved. God's Infinitude. Proofs. - - pp. 164-174.

Lecture XVI The Trinity

The Terms, Trinity, Essence, Substance, Subsistence, Person ; Derived and Defined. Three Tendencies of Opinion on Trinity; the Patripassian, Sabellian and Arian Schemes Stated and Refuted. Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity Stated and De- fended. Rationalistic Explanations of the Greek Scholastics, of Th. Aquinas. Proof of Trinity from Revelation. .----.-. pp. 174-182.

Lecture XVII Divinity of Christ

Argued froin His Pre-existence. In the Old Test. Theophanies, and Angel of the Covenant. Augustine's Difficulty answered. Divine Names, Attributes, W^orks and Worship given to Christ. - pp. 182 193.

Lecture XVIII Divinity of the Holy Ghost atid of the Son

History ofthe Doctrine of Holy Ghost. The Orthodox Doctrine. Personahty of the Holy Ghost, and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost argued from Scripture. Objections answered. Controversy on the Procession of Holy Ghost examined. Divinity of second and third Persons proved by offices in Redemption. pp. 193-201.

Lecture XX Decrees of God

His Acts Classified. Decree Proved by God's Intelligence, His Power. Dif- ferent from Fate. Distinction between permissive and efficacious. Properties of the Decree; Unity, Eternity, Universahty (including creatures' acts). Efficiency, Unconditionality, Freedom and Wisdom. Objections answered. - pp. 211-223.

Lecture XXL Predestination

Definition. Proposition, a Definite Election of Individual Men to Salvation, Proved, from Decree, from Original Sin, from Scripture Testimonies, by Providence. Evasions Considered, Predestination Eternal, Efficacious, Unchangeable, etc. ■Objections. Predestination of Angels, Diff"erent from that of Man. Schemes of the Sublapsarian and Supralapsarian Fxamined. pp. 223-234.

Lecture XXII Predestination, (concluded.)

Hypothetic Scheme Examined. Arminian Scheme Stated and Refuted. God's Decree of Preterition. Its Grounds. Proved. Predestination Consistent with Justice, with , Holiness, and with Benevolence of God. Practical Effects of the Doc- trine. ----- pp. 235-246.

Lecture XXIIL Creation

Terms Defined. Creation out of Nothing. The Atomic, Pantheistic and Platonic Schemes Refuted. Proofs from Scripture, from Reason ; and Objections to the Eternity of the Universe and Matter. No Creature can be Enabled to Create. The Creative Week. Theories of Modern Geologists concerning the Age of the Earth. Their Grounds and modes of Reconciling them with Mosaic History. pp. 247-256.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 3

Appendix. — Geologic Theories and Chronology.

Must concern Theologian. How to be treated by him. Burden of Proof against Revealed Facts lies on the Geologist. His a posteriori Argument Circum- stantial. Hence Invalid against Credible "Parole" Evidence. When pushed to extreme, Atheistic. --... pp_ 256 -263.

Lecture XXIV Atigels

Existence and Personality of Angels. Their Qualities. Their First Estate, Probation and Issue thereof. Offices of the Good Angels. Personality and Head- ship of Satan. Powers of BadAngels. Witchcraft. Demoniacal Possessions. Temp- tations. Personal Christian Duties Resulting. - . . . pp_ 264-275.

Lecture XXV Providence

Definitions. Theory of Epicurean, of General Providence. Of Pantheist. Concern of Providence in Phys. Causes and Laws. A Special argued from a General Providence. Doctrine Proved, from God's Perfections, Man's Moral Intuitions Course of Nature and Human History, Dependence of Creatures ; from Scriptures. Objections Answered. Relation of Providence to Rational Acts of Free Agents. God's Agency in Man's Spiritual Acts; in Man's Sins. Doctrine of an Immediate Concursus. The True Doctrine Sustained. - - - . . pp_ 276-291.

Lecture XX VL. — Man's Estate of Holiness, and the Covenant of Works

Man's Origin. Man's Person, Body and Spirit. In the "Image of God." Man's Original Righteousness. Concreated. Viewsof Pelagians and Socinians, and of Romanists Refuted. The True View Established. Natural Relation of Man to God's Will. Covenant of Works, Proof of its Institution and Extent to Posterity. The Condition and Seal of the Covenant. Probation Temporary. - pp. 292 301;.

Lecture XXVII The Fall, and Original Sin

Sin and Guilt Defined. Adam's First Sin. Effects of Sin in Adam. The Tempter. Sentence on Him. Eff'ects of Adam's Fall on His Posterity, According- to Pelagian ; Lower Arminian ; Wesleyan ; and Calvinistic Theory. Origin of Soulst History of Opinions. Args. of Traducianists and Creationists examined, ipp. 306-321.

Lecture XXIX Original Sin, {concluded.)

Objections to Ai-gs. for Native Depravity Considered. Objections to Imputa- tion, from Scriptures; from Absence of consent to Adam's Representation; from its Supposed Injustice ; from God's Goodness, Answered. Theories of Mediate and Immediate Imputation Examined and Correct View Sustained. Importance of the Doctrine from its Connection with other Doctrines of Redemption. - pp. 332-3151.

Lecture XXX The Decalogue

Definitions. Moral Distinction Intrinsic and Eternal. Of Moral Obligation. Uses of Law under the Covenant of Grace. Origin and Divisions. Rules of Inter- pretation. The Law Perfect. - - - - - - - pp. 35i--'i;7.

Lecture XXXII First Table.— [4th Commandment.)

Diversity in the Obser\"ance. Opinion of Papists, Lutherans, Socinians, the Anglican Church, Calvin, and the Arminians each Examined. True Doctrine Westminster Assembly. Sabbath Command Moral and Perpetual, Proved by Decalogue, by Tradidon. New Test. Arg. Anti-Sabbatarian View. The Lord's Day the Christian Sabbath. Practical Arg. - - - . pp. 366-''97.

Lecture XXXV Second Table.— {gth and loth Conunandments.)

Scope of 9th Commandment. Grounds of Duty of Veracity. Its practical im- portance. Evil Speaking. Are all Deceptions Lies? Scope of loth Commandment. Romish Division of it. The Decalogue only from God. "What does every Sin de- serve? - • pp. 419-4^9-

Lecture XXXVI The Covenant of Grace

God's Remedy. Terms defined. Covenant of Redemption, Proof of. How re- lated to the Covenant of Grace. The Original Parties to the Covenant. Motives of God to the Covenant. Conditions Pledged, by Christ; by the Father. Instrumental Conditi( n required of Men. Faith the only condition. - - pp. 429-439.

Lecture XXXVII Covenant of Grace, [continued.)

One in all Ages. Opinion of Socinians, of Anabaptists, of Remonstrant> thereon. Two Dispensations, why ? The Gospel Preached to Adam. The Development of Grace. A Mediator. Sacrificial Types. Additional Revelations to Patriarchs, Eternal Life Promised. pp. 44° 452-

Lecture XXXIX Mediator of the Covenant of Grace

Mediator what? Why Needed in the Covenant of Grace. Jesus the Mediator of Old Testament. Hypostatic Union, Views of Gnostics, Eutychians, Nestorians and Orthodox thereon ; the Ground of Efficacy of Christ's Work. Impeccability of Christ. Does Christ Mediate in both Natures ? Necessity of each. Necessity of Christ's Prophetic Work, Socinian view of. pp. 464-477.

Lecture XL Mediator, {continued.)

Christ the Only Mediator. Arg. of Rome refuted. Angelic Mediation. Christ's Anointing. Christ's Offices Three, Why? His Prophetic Work, its Modes and Periods. ------------pp. 477-484.

Lecture XLL Mediator, [concluded.)

Christ the True Priest. Functions of the Priesthood. Its Peculiarities. Neces- sity of Satisfaction Proved against Socinians, etc. God's Motive Satisfying His own Justice. False Theories of Penalty Refuted. Title to Penalty Correlative to Title to Reward. - pp. 485-499.

Lecture XLIL Nature of Christ's Sacrifice

Redemption Foreshadowed in Providence. Intervention Costs a Penalty. Sub- stitution Unusual among Men, Why ? Terms Defined. The very Penalty. Theory ol Christ's Death as held by Socinians, Theory of Moral Influence, and Theory of Governmental Influence Stated and Refuted. Christ's Proper Substitution and Vica- rious Sacrifice Proved. Conditions of Efficacy of this Atonement. - pp. 500 512.

Lecture XLIIL Nature of Christ's Sacrifice, [continued.)

Socinian and Semi-Pclag(an Objections to Doctrine of Vicarious Satisfaction con- sidered. Design of God therein and Extent of that Design. Theories of Pelagians, Wesleyans, Hypothetic Universalists (Amyrant), Calvinists. Proofs of latter and former refuted. Difficulties of the Subject. Christ's Satisfaction not Commercial. The Design and Result Co-extensive. God's Volitions from a Complex Motive. Objections Solved. pp. 515-535.

Lecture XLV Christ'' s Humiliation and Exaltation

Did He Descend into Hell ? Calvin's View. Exaltation, Session at Father's Right-hand. Resurrection of Christ Proved. Its Importance. Christ's Priestly In- tercession, its Grounds, Objects, Mode, Duration. Christ's Kingdom, the Extent of His Powers, its Duration. -----... pp_ C46 -553.

Lecture XLVI Effectual Calling

Applicadon of Redemption by Holy Ghost. Sin Necessitates the Call. Com- mon and Effectual CaUing. 'Designs of God in Common Call; His Sincerity therein. Scripture Arg. Objections considered. ------ pp_ 553-559.

Lecture XL VII.— Effectual Calling, {cbntinued.)

Agent and Instrument of Regeneration. Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian View of Regeneration. Correct View Sustained. Is the Operation of the Spirit Mediate ? Dick's View. Definition of Doctrine. Argument. How Moral Opinions Arise.

PP- 560-579-

Lecture XLVIII Anninian Theory of Redemption

Five Points of the Remonstrants. Wesleyan View of Original Sin. Doctrine of Common Sufficient Grace Refuted. Grace in Regeneration Invincible. The Soul Passive in its Quickening. No Salvation for the Heathen without Scripture Instru- mentality. - - - - pp_ 579-588.

Lecture XLIX Arminian Theory of Redetnption, {continued.')

Conditional Decrees ImpHed in Synergism. The Result Conditioned and not the Decree. Arg. True Nature of the Will Stated, Calvinistic View Agreeable, Ar- minian Inconsistent thereto. Motive and Disposition Defined. Free-Agency of the Natural Will, though decisively Determined to Carnality. Inability does not Super- sede Responsibility. Regeneration Perfects Free-Agency. Hence Responsibility in both States. pp. 859-899.

Lecture L Faith

Kinds of Faith. Temporary and Saving, Different. Christ the Special Object of Saving Faith. ImpHcit or Intelligent ? View of Romanists refuted, of Protestants sustained. Elements in Saving Faith. Sin of Unbelief. Historical Faith Distin- guished. Faith the Fruit of Regeneration. Objections and Answers. Fides Formata of Rome, Distinction. Assurance of Faith Distinguished. The Suitable Organ of Justification. pp. 600-612.

Lecture LI Union to Christ

By what similitudes described? Its results to believers. Its instrumental and essential bond. How it resembles and differs from the union of the Father and the Son — and that of the divinty and humanity of the Son. It is not merely that of a Leader and his followers. It is not a partaking of the substance of the Godhead. Indwelling of the Holy Ghost in this union. The union indissoluble, pp. 612-617.

Lecture Lll Jtistification

Importance of correct views of the doctrine. Scripture idea of. Romish view. Justification not by inherent grace and its works. Both pardon and adoption. Both Christ's active and passive obedience is the ground of it. What is adoption ?

pp. 618-627.

Lecture LIII Justification, (continued.)

Works cannot justify. James reconciled to Paul. Christ's work was not to lower the Law. Faith not our Imputed Righteousness. But Justification only on account of Christ's merit. pp. 628-640.

LECTURE LI v.— Justification, {concluded.) Imputation. Justification an Act. How related to the Judgment Day ? Faith only instrument of Justification. How related to Sanctification ? To good works ? Antinomian result rejected. -------- pp_ 64o-6i;o.

Lecture LV Repentance

Repentance of two kinds. Legal and Evangelical Repentance. Author of True Repentance. It follows new birth. How related to Faith. Yet no Satisfaction for Guilt. Fruits meet for Repentance. ---... pp_ 651-660.

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Lecture LVIL Sanctification, and Good Works, {continued.)

Sanctification is of the whole man : and progressive. EvangeUcal good work what? Merit what? Congruous and Condign. None in Behever's works. Nor Natural Man's. Concilia Ferfectionis rejected. Supererogation refuted. Standards of Sanctification. Value of Christ's Example therefor. - - - PP- 674-687.

Lecture LLX Assurance of Grace and Salvation

Distinguished by Confession from Faith. Doctrine of Rome, and of first Re- formers, touching. Not of the Essence of Saving Faith. The Grace attainable. Means: Self-examination, asserted. Objections: as, e.g., Fostering carnal security. The Witness. pp. 698-713.

LECTURE EX.— Prayer.

Definition and Parts. Proper Objects. Grounds of Duty. Objections to, from God's Perfections, and Stability of Natural Law. Rule of Prayer. Extent of war- rant for. Secret, Social, etc. Model of. Physical Prayer. Test. - pp. 713-725.

Lecture LXI The Sacraments

Definition. Sacraments are Seals. Parts of Sacraments. Qualities of Ele- ments. Sacramental Union what? Sacraments only Two : Under each Dispensa- tion. Spurious Romish Sacraments. .-..-. pp. 726-736.

Lecture LXII The Sacraments, {continued.)

Doctrine of Intention. Opus Operatum. Are they Necessary to Salvation? By. whom Administered? The Indelible Character Rejected. - pp. 737-748.

Appendix.

Apostohc Succession and Sacramental Grace shown to be a Blunder, pp. 748-757.

Lecture LXLLL Baptism

A Permanent Ordinance. Signification of Baptismal Regeneration. Formulary. John's Baptism. Baptism of Christ, for what? Mode of Baptism and Meaning of Words. - - - - pp. 758-767.

LECTURE LXL v.— Baptism -tke Mode.

Mode of for all Ages and Climates. Mode best Suited to Significance. Analo- gy of Figurative Baptisms. Mode of New Testament Cases. Ecclesiastical Results of Immersionists' Dogma. Primitive Mode. . . . _ pp. 768-777.

LECTURE LX v.— Subjects of Baptism.

Proper Subjects, Who? Baptism of Infants not Unreasonable. Argued from Infant Membership and Abrahamic Covenant. Argued from Unlikelihood of their Exclusion. From Great Commission. ------ pp, 777-788.

Lecture LXVI Subjects of Baptism, {concluded.)

Proselyte Baptism Implies Infant Baptism. Baptism of Houses. Infants Ad- dressed as in the Church. Historical Argument. Infant Baptism does not Corrupt Church. Relation of Baptized to Church. - . _ _ . pp. 789-799.

Lecture LXVIIL The Lord's Supper, {concluded.)

Doctrine of Calvin as to Real Presence compared with that of Zwinglius and Westminster. Supper not a Sacrifice. Private Communions Disapproved. Laity should have the Cup. Proper Administerer. Sacramental Efficiency, what ? pp. 809-817.

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 7

Lecture LXIX Death of Believers

Why Death befalls the Justified. Souls Immortal. Benefits received by Justi- "fied at Death. Sanctification then complete. No Intermediate Place. Sleep of Souls rejected. -- pp. 817-829

Lecture LXX The Resurrection

Speculations on. Docti-ine Defined. Qualities and Identity of Resurrection bodies. Objections dissolved. Doctrine proved from Scripture. How related to •Christ's. Two Resurrection^ and Pre-Adventism. - . - - pp. 829-841

Lecture LXXLL Nature and Duration of Llell-Torments

The Punishment of Wicked, what? Speculations as to Duration. UniversaUsm. Objections of to Scripture Doctrine. Meaning of Bible Words. Everlasting pun- ishments proved. -..._.---- pp. 852-862.

LE C TURE LXXHL The Civil Magistrate.

True theory of Civil Government. Social Contract Theory. Civil and Nat- ural Liberty, what ? Equality. Objects and Limits of civil Powers. Higher Law, and Private Judgment. Passive Obedience. Right of Revolution. - pp. 862-872

Lecture LXXLV Religious Liberty and Church and State

Religious Liberty and Private Judgment Established. Persecutions for opinions Tcjected. High Theory of Church Establishments rejected. Chalmers' Theory considered. Proper Relations of Church and State. Civil Powers over.

pp. 873-887

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The note Ad Lectorem, prefixed by the Students to the first edition which they printed, sufficiently explains the origin and nature of this course of Theology. The experience of several years in teaching it, has disclosed at once its utility and its defects. Much labor has been devoted to the removal of the latter, and to addi- tional research upon every important point of discussion. The syllabus has been enriched with a great number of references. Two hundred and sixty pages of new matter have been added. The book is attended with full Table of Contents and Index; fitting it for reference. A multitude of typographical errors have been f^emoved; and the larger type and better material, it is ti-usted, will concur to make the book not only more sightly, but more durable and useful.

The main design, next to the estabhshment of Divine Truth, has been to furn- ish students in divinity, pastors, and intelligent lay-Christians, a view of the whole field of Christian theology, without swelHng the work to a size too unwieldy and costly for the purposes of instruction. Every head of divinity has received at least brief attention. The discussion is usually compact. The reader is requested to bear in mind, that the work is only styled "Syllabus and Notes" of a course in theology. The full expansion or exhaustive illustration of topics has not been promised. Hence unless the reader has already a knowledge of these topics derived from copious pre- vious study, he should not expect to master these discussions by a cursoiy reading. He is candidly advertised that many parts will remain but partially appreciated, unless he shall find himself wiUing either to read enough of the authorities referred to in the Syllabus, to place him at the proper point of view ; or else to ponder the oudine of the arguments by the efforts of mature and vigorous thought for himself, and thus till out the full body of discussion.

The work is now humbly offered again to the people of God, in the hope that it may assist to establish them in the old and orthodox doctrines which have been the

power and glory of the Refomied Churches.

ROBERT L. DABNEY. Union Theo. Seminary, Va., Aug. 15th, 1878.

SYLLABUS

1. What is Theology ; and what its Divisions ? Prove that there is a Science of Natural Theology.

Turrettin, Loc. i, Qu. 2-3. Thornwell, Collected Works, Vol. i. Lect. 1, PP- 25-36

2. What two Lines of Argument to prove the Existence of a God ? What the a priori Arguments ? Are they valid ?

Stillingfleet, Origines Sacrae, bk. iii. ch. i. Thornwell, Lect. ii, p. 51, &c. Dr. Samuel Clarke, Discourse of the Being and Attributes of God, c. 1-12 Chalmers' Nat. Theol., Lect. iii. Dick. Lect. xvi. Cudworth's Intellect. System.

3. State the Arguments of Clarke. Of Howe. Are they sound? Are they a priori ?

Dr. S. Clarke, as above. J. Howe's Living Temple, ch. H, ^9 to end. Locke's Essay on the Human Understanding, bk. iv. ch. 10.

4. State the Argument of Breckinridge's Theology. Is it valid ? "Knowledge of God Objecdve," bk. i, ch 5. Review of Breck. Theol. in Central Presbyterian, March to April, 1858.

5. Give an oudine of the Arg. from Design. Paley, Nat. Theol. ch. i, 2, 3. Xenophon'si^/£wt7ra(5z7/a, lib. i, ch. v. Cicero De Nattira Deorum,Xih.\\ ^2-^. Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. I. Theological Treatises generally.

TT is justly said: Every science should begin by defining its -*- terms, in order to shun verbal fallacies. The word Theology,

Idtou /.oyoQ), has undergone peculiar mutations Theology, mat? .^ ^^^^ history of science. The Greeks often used it for their theories of theogony and cosmogony, Aristotle uses it in a more general form, as equivalent to all metaphysics; divid- ing theoretical philosophy into physical, mathematical, and theo- logical. Many of the early Christian fathers used it in the restricted sense of the doctrine of Christ's divinity: (scil. hoavw^- bSzoAuyo::). But now it has come to be used, commonly, to describe the whole science of God's being and nature, and relations to the crea- ture. The name is appropriate : " Science of God." Th. Aqui- nas : "Theologia a Deo docetur, Deiim docet, ad Dewn duett," God its author, its subject, its end.

The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and

practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all Its Divisions. didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refu-

tation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been de- fined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this

5

6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with refer- ence to its first principle, or -rmzov (peodo:; But the attempt to lorm a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theolo- gy fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics ; or they have been confused. Again : Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic ; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic.

Theology is divided into natural and revealed, according to the sources of our knowledge of it ; from Is there^a Natural natural reason ; from revelation. What is ^°°^' scietice? Knowledge demonstrated and

methodized. That there is a science of Natural Theology, of at least some certain and connected propositions, although limited, and insufficient for salvation at best, is well argued from Scripture, e. g. Ps. xix : 1-7. Acts xiv : 15; or xvii : 23. Rom. i : 19 ; ii : 14, &c.; and from the fact that nearly all heathens have religious ideas and rites of worship. Not that religious ideas are innate: but the capacity to estab- lish some such ideas, from natural data, is innate. Con- sider further : Is not this implied in man's capacity to receive a revealed theology ? Does revelation demonstrate God's exis- tence; or assume it? Does it rest the first truths on pure dogmatism, or on evidence which man apprehends ? The latter ; and then man is assumed to have some natural capacity for such apprehension. But if nature reflects any light concerning God, (as Scripture asserts), then man is capable of deriving some theology from nature.

Some old divines were wont to deny that there was any science of Natural Theology, and to say

^ ^^ ' that without revelation, man would not nat-

urally learn its first truth. They attribute the grains of truth, mixed with the various polytheisms to the remnants of tradition descending from Noah's family. They urge that some secluded tribes, Hottentots, Australians, have no re- ligious ideas; that some men are sincere atheists after re- flection ; and that there is the wildest variety, yea contra- diction, between the different schools of heathens. These divines seem to fear lest, by granting a Natural Theology, they should grant too much to natural reason ; a fear ungrounded and extreme. They are in danger of a worse consequence ; reduc- ing man's capacity for receiving divine verities so low, that the rational sceptic will be able to turn upon them and say : "Then by so inept a creature, the guarantees of a true revelation cannot be certainly apprehended."

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 7

To reply more in detail ; I grant much influence to prim- ps r eval traditions, (a subject of great interest

learnedly discussed in Theo. Gale's Court of the Gentiles). But that so inconstant a cause is able to perpetuate in men these fixed convictions of the invisi- ble, shows in man a natural religious capacity. That there have been atheistic persons and tribes, is inconclusive. Some tribes deduce no science of geometry, statics, or even num- bers ; but this does not prove man non-logical. Some pro- fess to disbelieve axioms, as Hume that of causation ; but this is far from proving* man incapable of a natural science of in- duction. Besides, the atheism of these tribes is doubtful ; savages are shrewd, suspicious, and fond of befooling inquisitive stran- gers by assumed stupidity. And last : the differences of Natural theology among polytheists are a diversity in unity ; all involve the prime truths ; a single first cause, responsibility, guilt, a fu- ture life, future rewards and punishments.

2. The first truth of theology is the existence of God.

The first question which meets us is : How Existence of God: ^^^ ^ ^j^ existence of God? Dr,

How Ivnown r /^i i tt , rr- -^-11

Charles Hodge [Systematic Theology, part

I chapter i.] states and argues that the knowledge of it is "innate." This assertion he explains by saying that it is "intuitive." It must be understood, however, that he also em- ploys this term in a sense of his own. With him, any truth is intuitive, which is immediately perceived by the mind. He dis- sents from the customary definition of philosophers, [as Sir W. Hamilton] which requires simplicity, or primariness, as the trait of an intuitive judgment. He explains himself by saying, that to Newton, all the theorems of Euclid's first book were as imme- diately seen as the axioms ; and therefore, to him, intuitiox;.:. We shall see, in a subsequent lecture,the dangers of this view. I hold, with the current of philosophers, that an intuitive truth is [cz] one that is seen true without any premise, [(5] so seen by all minds which comprehend itsterms,[^] necessarily seen. Strictly, it cannot be said, that any intuitive truth is innate. The power of perceiving it is innate. The explanation of the case of New- ton and of similiar ones, is easy : To his vigorous mind, the step from an intuitive premise to a near cbnclusion,was so prompt and easy as to attract no attention. Yet, tlie step zvas takeji. When Dr. Hod^e calls men's knowledge that there is a God "z//- ««/^," i. e., " intuitive," his mistake is in confoundmg a smgle, short, clear step of deduction, made by common sense, with an intuition. He, very properly, exalts the ethical evidence into the chief place. But the amount of it is this : " The senti- ment of responsibility (which is immediate) is intuitive." This implies an Obligator. True. But what is the evolution of this iraphcation, save (a short, easy, and obvious step of) reasoning? Divines and Christian philosophers, in the attempt to ex-

8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

plain the belief in a God, which all men have, as a rational pro- cess, have resolved it into the one or the other of two modes of argument, XhQ a priori Tind a posteriori. The latter infers a God by reasoning backwards from effects to cause. The for- mer should accordingly mean reasoning downwards from cause to effect; the meaning attached to the phrase by Aristotle and his followers. But now the term a priori reasoning is used, in this connection, to denote a conclusion gained without the aid of experience, from the primary judgments, and especially, the at- tempt to infer the truth of a notion, directly from its nature or condition in the mind.

It appears to be common among recent writers (as Dick,

A Priori Argument. Chalmers' Natural Theology), to charge Dr. What, and by Whom Samuel Clarke as the chief asserter of the Urged? ^ priori dirgvivatnt among Englishmen. This

is erroneous. It may be more correctly said to have been first intimated by Epicurus (whose atomic theory excluded \\\Q a posteriori argument;) as appears from a curious passage in Cicero, de tiatura Deoriun, Lib. I. c. i6. It was more ac- curately stated by the celebrated Des Cartes in his meditations ; and naturalized to the English mind rather by Bishop Stilling- fleet than by Dr. Clarke. The student may find a very dis- tinct statement of it in the Origines Sacroe of the former, book III, chapter i, § 14: while Dr. Clarke, § 8 of his Discourse, expressly says that the personal intelligence of God must be proved a posteriori, and not a priori. But Des Cartes having founded his psychology on the two positions : ist. Cogito; ergo Slim ; and 2nd. The Ego is spirit, not matter ; proceeds to ask : Among all the ideas in the consciousness, how shall the true be distinguished from the false, seeing all are obviously not consistent ? As to primary ideas, his answer is ; by the clear- ness with which they commend themselves to our conscious- ness as immediate truths. Now, among our ideas, no other is so clear and unique as that of a first Cause, eternal and in- finite. Hence we may immediately accept it as consciously true. Moreover, that we have this idea of a God, proves there must be a God ; because were there none, the rise of His idea in our thought could not be accounted for; just as the idea of triangles implies the existence of some triangle. Now the a priori argument of StiUingfleet is but a specific application of Des Cartes' method. We find, says he, that in thinking of a God we must think Him as eternal, self-existent, and neces- sarily existent. But since we indisputably do think a God, it is impossible but that God is. Since necessary existence is una- voidably involved in our idea of a God, therefore His existence must necessarily be granted.

Now surely this process is not necessarily inconclusive.

Its Defect because it is a priori', there are processes,

in which we validly determine the truth

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 9

of a notion by simple inspection of its contents and con- ditions. But the defect of Stillingfleet's reasoning is, that it does not give the correct account of our thought. If the student will inspect the two propositions, which form an enthymeme, he will see that the conclusion depends on this assumption, as its major premise : That we can have no idea in our consciousness, for which there is not an answering objective reahty. (Tliis is, obviously, the assumed major ; be- cause without it the ethymeme can only contain the conclusion, that God, if there is one, necessarily exists.) But that major premise is, notoriously, not universally true.

Now, instead of saying that Dr. Clarke's method, in

the Discourse of the Being, &c., of God, CkriFe!""^"' °^ ^'' ^' is the a priori, it is more correct to say

(with Hamilton's Reid) that it is an a pos- teriori argument, or with Kant, Cosniological, inferring the -existence of God from His effects ; but disfigured at one or two points by useless Cartesian elements. His first posi- tion is : Since something now exists, something has existed from eternity. This, you will find, is the starting point of the argument, with all reasoners ; and it is solid. For, if at any time in the past eternity, there had been absolute- ly nothing, since nothing cannot be a cause of existence, time and space must have remained forever blank of existence. Hence, 2d., argues Dr. Clarke : there has been, from eternity, 5ome immutable and independent Being: because an eternal succession of dependent beings, without independent first cause, is impossible. 3d. This Being, as independent eternally, must be self-existent, that is, necessarily existing. For its eternal in- dependence shows that the spring, or causative source of its ex- istence, could not be outside of itself; it is therefore within itself forever. But the only true idea of such self-existence is, that the idea of its non-existence would be an express contradiction. And here. Dr. Clarke very needlessly adds : our notion that the ex- istence is necessary, proves that it cannot but exist. He reasons also : our conceptions of infinite time and infinite space are nec- essary : we cannot but think them. But they are not substance : they are only modes of substance. Unless some substance ex- ists of which they are modes, they cannot exist, and so, would not be thought. Hence, there must be an infinite and eternal substance. 4th. The substajice of this Being is not comprehens- ible by us : but this does not make the evidence of its existence less certain. For, 5th. Several of its attributes are demon- strable; as that it must be, 6th, Infinite and omnipresent; 7th, that it must be One, and 8th, that it must be intelligent and free, &c. The conclusion is, that this Being must be Creator and God, unless the universe can itself fulfil the conditions of eterni- ty, necessary self-existence, infinitude, and intelligence and free choice. This is Pantheism : which he shows cannot be true.

lO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

On his argument as a whole, I remark, that it is in the main vahd, because it is in the main a Valid, because a pos- postctiori: it appeals to the intuitive judg- ment of cause, to infer from finite effects an infinite first cause. The Cartesian features attached to the 3d proposition are an excrescence ; but we may remove them, and leave the chain adamantine. We will prune them away, not for the reasons urged by Dr. Chalmers, which are in several partic- ulars as invalid as Dr. Clarke ; but for the reason already ex- plained on pages 8 and 9, I only add, it seems to argue that time and space can only be conceived by us as modes of substance ; and therefore infinite and eternal substance must ex- ist. The truth here is : that we cannot conceive of finite sub- stance or events, without placing it in time and space ; a differ- ent proposition from Dr. Clarke's.

I think we have the metaphysical argument for the being of a God, stated in a method free ^^Howe's Demonstra- ^^^^ ^j^^^^ objections, by the great Puri- tan divine, John Howe. He flourished about 1650, A. D., and prior to Dr. Clarke. See his Living Tem- ple, chapter H. He begins thus : i. Since we now exist, something has existed from eternity. 2. Hence, at least, some uncaused Being, for the eternal has nothing prior to it. 3. Hence some independent Being. 4. Hence that Being exists necessarily; for its independent, eternal, inward spring of exis- tence cannot be conceived as possibly at any time inoperative. 5 . This Being must be self-active ; active, because, if other beings did not spring from its action, they must all be eternal, and so independent, and necessary, which things are impossible for be- ings variously organized and changeable ; and self-active, because in eternity nothing was before Him to prompt His action. 6. This Being is living ; for self-prompted activity is our very idea of life. 7. He is of boundless intelligence, power, freedom, &c. This argument is in all parts well knit. But it is ob- viously a posteriori ; for all depends from

What needed to com- • i j j i.- r • c

pleteit? ^ smiple deduction, Irom a universe 01

effects, back to their cause ; and in the same way are inferred the properties of that cause. The only place where the argument needs completion, is at the fifth step. So far forth, the proof is perfect, that some eter- nal, uncaused, necessary Being exists. But how do we prove that this One created all other Beings? The answer is: these others must all be either eternal or temporal. May it be, all are eter- nal and one? then all are uncaused, independent, self-existent, and necessary. This, we shall see, is Pantheism. If the rest are temporal, then they were all caused, but by what? Either by the one uncaused, eternal Being; or by other similar temporal be- ings generating them. But the latter is the theory of an infinite, independent scries of finite organisms, each one dependent.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 11

When, therefore, we shall have stopped these two breaches, by refuting Pantheism and the hypothesis of infinite series, the' de- monstration will be perfect.

Kant has selected this cosmological argument, as one

Cavil of Kant. of his "antinomies," illustrating the inval-

idity of the a ptiori reason, when applied to empirical things. His objection to its ' validity seems to amount to. this : Tlfat the proposition "Nothing can exist with- out a cause out of itself," cannot be absolute : For if it were, then a cause must be assigned for the First Cause himself.

But let us give the intuition in more accurate form : " Noth- ing can begin to exist, without a cause out of itself" Kant's cavil has now disappeared, as a moment's consideration will show. The necessary step of the reason from the created things up to a creator, is now correctly explained. " Every effect must have a cause." True. An effect is an existence or phenomenon which has a beginning. Such, obviously, is each created thing. Hence, it must have proceeded from a cause which had no be- ginning, i. e.,,a God. Moreover: I cannot too early utter my protest against Kant's theory, that our regulative, intuitive prin- ciples of reason are merely suggestive, (while imperative,) and have no objective validity. Were this true, our whole intelli- gence would be a delusion. On the other hand, every law of thought is also a law of existence and of reality. Knowledge of this fact is original with every mind when it begins to think, is as intuitive as any other principle of the reason, and is an ab- solutely necessary condition of all other knowledge. Moreover : the whole train of man's a posteriori knowledge is a continual demonstration of this principle, proving its trustworthiness by the perfect correspondence between our subjective intuitions and empirical truths.

Now Platonism held that all substance is uncaused and

Platonic Scheme. eternal, as to its being. All finite, ration- al spirits, said this theology, are emana- tions of To "ON, the eternal intelligence; and all matter has been from eternity, as inert, passive chaotic "}7-y^. Pla- tonism referred all organization, all fashioning (the only creation it admitted), all change, however either directly or indirectly, to the intelligent First Cause. This scheme does not seem very easily refuted by natural reason. Let it be urged that the very notion of the First Cause implies its singleness ; and, more solidly, that the unity of plan and work- ing seen in nature, points to only one, single, ultimate cause ; Plato could reply that he ■ made only one First Cause, To " ON, for olq is inert, and only the recipient of causation. Let that rule be urged, which Hamilton calls his ' law of parcimony,' that hypotheses must include nothing more than is necessary to ac- count for effects : Plato could say : No : the reason as much demands the supposition of a material pre-existing, as of aa

J 2 SYLL^UJUS AND NOTES

almighty Workman ; for even omnipotence cannot work, with nothing' to work on. Indeed, so far as I know.all human systems, Plato's, Epicurus,' Zeno's, Pythagoras,' the Peripatetic, had this common feature ; that it is self-evident, substance cannot rise out of nihil into esse ; that ex nihilo nihil fit. And we shall see how obstinate isthe tendency of philosophy to relapse to this maxim, in the instances of Spinoza's Pantheism, and Kant's and Hamil- ton's theory of causation. Indeed it may be doubted whether the human mind, unaided by revelation, would ev^er have ad- vanced farther than this. It was from an accurate knowledge of the history of philosophy, that the apostle declared, (He- brews xi : 3,) the doctrine of an almighty creation out of nothing is one of pure faith.

Dr.. Clarke, as you saw, does indeed attempt a rational ar-

1- T.1 . • gument that the eternity of matter is impos- Can the Platonic & ^ i ^ u

Doctrine of the Eterni- sible. The eternal must be necessary; ty of all Substances be hence an eternal cause must necessarily be. Refuted by Reason? g^^ ^j^^^ \v\yiz\\ Can possibly be thought as ex- isting and yet not necessary, cannot be eternal. Such is his logic. I think inspection will show you a double defect. The first enthymeme, as we saw(p. 8) is not conclusive ; and the second, even if the first were true, would be only inferring the converse ; which is not necessarily conclusive.

Howe states a more plausible argument, at wh'ch Dr. Clarke also glances. Were matter eternal, it must needs be necessary. But then it must be ubiquitous, homogeneous, immutable, like God's substance ; because this inward eternal necessity of being cannot but act always and everywhere alike. Whereas, we see matter diverse, changing and only in parts of space. I doubt whether this is solid ; or whether from the mere postulate of nec- essary existence, we can infer anything more than Spinoza does : that eternal matter can possibly exist in no other organisms and sequences of change, than those in which it actually exists. Our surest refutation of this feature of Platonism is God's word. This heathen theology is certainly nearest of any to the Christian, here, and less repugnant than any other to the human reason and God's honor.

Dr. R. J. Breckinridge, (vol. I, p. 56. &c,) constructs what he Dr. Breckinridge. assures US is an argument of his own, for the being of a God. A brief inspection of it will illustrate the subject, i. Because something now is — at least the mind that reasons — therefore something eternal is. 2. All known substance is matter or spirit. 3. Hence only three possi- ble alternatives ; either, (a.) some matter is eternal ; and the source of all spirit and all other matter. Or, (b.) some being composed of matter and spirit is the eternal one, and the source of all other matter and spirit. Or, (c.) some spirit is eternal, and produced all other spirit and matter. The third hypothesis .must be the true one : not the second because we are matter

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 3

and spirit combined, and, consciously, cannot create ; and more- over tlie first Cause must be single. Not the first, because mat- ter is inferior to mind ; and the inferior does not produce the superior.

The objections to this structure begin at the second part, where the author leaves the established forms of Howe and Clarke. First : the argument cannot apply, in the Tnind of a pure idealist, or of a materialist. Second : it is not rigidly demonstrated that there can be no substance but matter and spirit; all that can be done is to say, negatively, that no other is known to us Third : the three alternative propositions do not exhaust the case ; the Pantheist and the Peripatetic, of eternal organization, show us that others are conceivable, as obviously does the Platonic. Fourth : that we, combined of matter and spirit, consciously cannot create, is short of proof that some higher being, thus constituted, cannot. Christ could create, if He pleased ; He is thus constituted. Last : it is unfortunate that an argument, which aims to be so experi- mental, should have the analogy of our natural experience so much against it. For we only witness human spirits producing effects, when incorporate. As soon as they are disembodied, (at death,) they totally cease to be observed causes of any effects. The teleological argument for the being and attributes of a God has been so well stated by Paley, in his Teleological Argu- Natural Theology, that though as old as Job and Socrates, it is usually mentioned as Paley's argument. I refer you especially to his first three chapters. Beginning from the instance of a peasant finding a watch on a common, and although not knowing how it came there, conclud- ing that some intelligent agent constructed it ; he applies the same argument, with great beauty and power, to show that man and the universe have a Maker. For we see everywhere intelli- gent arrangement ; as the eye for seeing, the ear for hearing, &c., &c. Nor is the peasant's reasoning to a watchmaker weakened, because he never sav/ one at work, or even heard of one ; nor because a part of the structure is not understood ; nor because some of the adjustments are seen to be imperfect; nor, if you showed the peasant, in the watch, a set of wheels for reproducing its kind, would he be satisfied that there was no watchmaker : for he would see that this reproductive mechanism could not produce the intelligent arrangements. Nor would he be satisfied with a "law of nature," or a "physical principle of order," as the sole cause.

It is a fact, somewhat curious, that the metaphysical and the

teleological arguments have each had their ex-

Are the two, rival elusive advocates in modern times. The ap-

lines of proof? r -n i • • -n. -ru tj •

plauders oi raley jom Dr. ihomas brown in scouting the former as shadowy and inconclusive. The supporters of the metaphysical divines depreciate Paley, as leading us to noth-

14 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ing above a mere Dciniurgus. In truth, both hnes of reasoning are vahd ; and each needs the other. Dr. Brown, for instance, in carrying Paley's argument to its higher conclusions, must tacitly borrow some of the very metaphysics which he professes to dis- dain. Otherwise it remains incomplete,and leads to no more than a sort oiArtifex Mtmdi, whose existence runs back merely to a date prior to human experience, and whose being, power and wisdom are demonstrated to extend only as far as man's inquiries have gone. But that He is eternal,immutable, independent, immense, infinite in power or wisdom ; it can never assure us. True, in- viewing the argument, your mind did leap to the conclusion that the artificer of nature's contrivances is the Being of " eternal power and godhead," but it was only because you passed, almost unconsciously, perhaps, through that metaphysical deduction, of which Howe gives us the exact description. Howe's is the com- prehensive, Paley's the partial (but very lucid) display of the a posteriori argument. Paley's premise ; that every contrivance must have an intelligent contriver, is but an instance under the more general one, that every effect must have a cause. The in- adequacy of Paley's argument may be illustrated in this : that he seems to think the peasant's discovery of a stone, instead of a watch, could not have led his mind to the same conclusion, whereas a pebble as really, though not so impressively, suggests a cause, as an organized thing. For even the pebble should make us think either that it is such as can have the ground of its ex- istence in its present form in itself; and so, can be eternal, self- existent, and necessary ; or else, that it had a Producer, who does possess these attributes.

But, on the other hand, this argument from contrivance has Its value great value, for these reasons. It is plain and

popular. It enables us to evince the unity of the first cause through the unity of purpose and convergence of the consequences of creation. It aids us in showing the per- sonality of God, as a being of intelligence and will ; and it greatly strengthens the assault we shall be enabled to make on Panthe- ism, by showing, unless there is a personal and divine first Cause prior to the univ^erse, this must itself be, not only uncaused, eternal, independent, necessarily existent, but endued with intelligence.

SYLLABUS

1. Show in a few instances how the Argument from Design is drawn from Ani- mal Organisms, from Man's Mental and Emotional Structure, and from the Adaptation of Matter to our Mental Faculties.

See Paley, Nat. Theol. bk. iv, ch. iii, i6. Chalmers' Nat. Theol. bk. iv, ch. i, 2-5

2. Can the being of God be argued from the existence of Conscience ? Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. i, ^14 15. Hodge, Syst. Theol. part i, ch ii, ^5. Alex- ander's Moral Science, ch. xii. Chalmers' Nat. Thegl. bk. iii, ch. 2. Charnock Attributes, Discourse i, §3. Kant, Critique of the Practical Reason. Thorn- well, Lect. ii.

3. What the value of the Argument from the Consensus Populorum'^. Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. i, gi6-i8. Dick, Lect. xvii. Cicero de Nat. Deo7-uni, lib. i. Charnock, Discourse i, §1

4. Refute the evasion of Hume : That the Universe is a Singular Effect. Alexander's Moral Science, ch. xxviii. Chalmer's Nat. Theol. bk. i, ch. 4. Watson's Theo. Institutes, pt ii, cli. i. Hodge, pt. i, ch. ii. §4. Reign of Law, Duke of Argyle, ch. iii.

5. Can the Universe be accounted for without a Creator, as an infinite series of Temporal Effects ?

Alexander's Moral Science, ch. xxviii. Turrettin, as above, §6-7. Dr. S. Clarke's Discourse \2. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1st Antinomy.

6. Refute the Pantheistic Scheme of the Universe.

Thornwell, Lect. ix. Alex. Moral Science, ch. xxviii. Dr. S. Clarke's Dis- course, &c. \ 3, 7, 9, &c. Chalmers' Nat. Theol., bk. i, ch, v. Hodge, pt. i, ch. iii \ 5, Thornwell, "Personality of God," in Works, vol. i, p. 490.

' I ^O resume: A single instance of intelligent contrivance ■*■ in the works of creation would prove an intelligent Cre- ator. Yet, it is Avell to multiply these proofs, ir^l^XT:tt^' even largely: for they give us then a wider foundation of deduction, stronger views of the extent of the creative wisdom and power; and better evi- dence of God's unity.

Hence, as instances, showing how the argument is con- structed : If the design is to produce the imS"'°''^^"'°^^'" physical part of the sensation of vision ; the eye is obviously an optical instrument, con- trived with lenses to refract, expedients for obtaining an achromatic spectrum, adjustments for distance and quantity of light, and protection of the eye, by situation, bony socket, brow, lids, lubricating fluids; and in birds, the nictitating membrane. Different creatures also have eyes adapted to their lives and media of vision ; as birds, cats, owls, fishes. So, the ear is an auditory apparatus, with a concha to con- verge the sound-waves, a tube, a tympanum to transmit vi- bration, the three bones [malleus, stipes and mens) in instable equilibrium, to convey it to the sensorutvi, &c.

The world of spirit is just as full of evident contrivan- ces. See (e. g.) the laws of habit and im- tur^jMan"*''^^^^''''' ^^^^^0"' exactly adjusted to educate and to form the character ; and the faculties of

IS

1 6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

memory, association, taste, &c. The evidences of contrivance are, if possible, still more beautiful in our emotional structure ^ e. g. in the instincts of parental love, sympathy, resentment and its natural limits, sexual love, and its natural check, modesty ;. and above all, conscience, with its self-approval and remorse. All these are adjusted to obvious ends.

We see marks of more recondite design, in the natural

compensation for necessary defects. The

In Compensating elephant's short neck is made up by a lithe

Arrangements. \ . -i->- i > i ir j

proboscis. Birds heads cannot carry teeth : but they have a gizzard. Insects with fixed heads, have a num- ber of eyes to see around them. Brutes have less reason, but more instinct ; &c., &c.

The adaptations of one department of nature to another

show at once contrivance, selecting will and In Adaptations. unity of mind. Thus, the media and the

organs of sense are made for each other^ The forms and colours of natural objects are so related to taste ; the degree of fertility imparted to the earth, to man's necessity for labour; the stability of physical law, to the necessary judgments of the reason thereabout. So all na- ture, material and spiritual, animal, vegetable, inorganic, on our planet, in the starry skies, are full of wise contrivance.

The moral phenomena of conscience present a twofold

evidence for the being of a God, worthy scitnfe'!"''"'^''°'''^°"' of fuller illustration than space allows. This

faculty is a most ingenious spiritual con- trivance, adjusted to a beneficent end : viz., the promotion of virtuous acts, and repression of wicked. As such, it proves a contriver, just as any organic adjustment does. But second : we shall find, later in the course, that our moral judgments are intuitive, primitive, and necessary; the most inevitable functions of the reason. Now, the idea of our acts which have rightness, is unavoidably attended with the judgment that they are obligatory. Obligation must imply an obliger. This is not always any known creature : hence, the Creator. Again, our conscience of wrong-doing unavoidably suggests fear ; but fear implies an avenger. The secret sinner, the imperial sinner above all creature-power, shares this dread. Now, one may object, that this process is not valid, unless we hold God's mere will the sole source of moral distinc- tions : which we do not teach, since an atheist is reasonably compelled to hold them. But the objection is not just. The primitive law of the reason must be accepted as valid to us, whatever its source. For parallel : The intuitive belief in causa- tion is found on inspection, to contain the proposition, 'There is a first Cause.' But in order for the validity of this proposition, it is not necessary for us to say that this intuition is God's arbitrary implantation. It is intrinsically true to the nature of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1/

things ; and the argument to a first Cause therefore only the more vaHd.

This moral argument to the being of a God, as it is imme- diate and strictly logical, is doubtless far the most practical. Its force is seen in this, that theoretical atheists, in danger and death, usually at the awakening of remorse, acknowledge God.

You find the argument from the Consensus Populorum, much elaborated by your authorities. I con- UnivelsH'consen^™ ^lude that it gives a strong probable evidence for the being of a God, thus : The truth is abstract; its behef would not have been so nearly universal, nor so obviously essential to man's social existence, did not a valid ground for it exist in man's laws of thought. For it can be ac- counted for neither by fear, policy, nor self-interest.

From the afifirmative argument, we return to evasions. 4. Objected, that -^^^ objection is urged, that the argument Contrivance betrays from design, if valid, proves only a crea- Lunitation. ^qj. ^f liniited powers. For contrivance is

the expedient of weakness. E. g. one constructs a derrick, because he is too weak to lift the mass as a Samson. If the Creator has eternal power and godhead, why did He not go straight to His ends, without means, as in Ps. 33 : 9? I answer, design proves a designer, though in part unintelligible. 2nd. It w^ould not be unworthy of the Almighty to choose this man- ner of working, in order to leave His signature on it for man to read. 3d. Chiefly : Had God employed no means to ends, he must have remained the only agent ; there would have been no organized nature ; but only the one supernatural agent.

Hume strives to undermine the argument from the creation Hume Objects that ^^ a Creator, by urging that, since only expe- the World is a Singular rience teaclies us the uniformity of the tie '^^^^^- between effect and cause, it is unwarranted

to apply it farther than experience goes with us. But no one has had any experience of a Vv^orld-maker, as we have of making implements in the arts. The universe, if an effect at all, is one wholly singular : the only one anybody has known, and from the earliest human experience, substantially as it is now. Hence the empirical induction to its first Cause is unauthorized.

Note first : this is from the same mint with his argument against miracles. Creation is simply the first Dr. Alexander's An- miracle ; the same objection is in substance

svver

brought; viz: no testimony can be weighty enough to prove, against universal experience, that a miracle has occured. Next, Dr. Alexander, to rebut, resorts to an illustra- tion ; a country boy who had seen only ploughs and horse-carts, is shown a steam-frigate ; yet he immediately infers a mechan- ic for it. The fact will be so; but it will not give us the whole analysis. True, the frigate is greatly larger and more complicated than a horse cart; (as the universe is than any

*2

1 8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

human machine). But still, Hume might urge that the boy would see a thousand empirical marks, cognizable to his ex- periences, (timber with marks of the plane on it, as on his plough-beam, the cable as evidently twisted of hemp, as his plough-lines ; the huge anchor with as evident dints of the hammer, as his plough-share,) which taught him that the wonderful ship was also a produced mechanism. Astonish- ing as it is to him, compared with the plough, it is experiment- ally seen to be not natural, like the universe,

Chalmers, in a chapter full of contradictions, seems to grant that experience alone teaches us the mers nswer. ^^^^^ ^^ causation, and asserts that still the universe is not "a singular effect." To show this, he sup- poses, with Paley, the peasant from a watch inferring a watch-maker : and then by a series of abstractions, he shows that the logical basis of the inference is not anything pe- culiar to that watch, as that it is a gold, or a silver, a large, a small, or a good watch, or a machine to measure time at all ; but simply the fact that it is a manifest contrivance for an end. The effect then, is no longer singular ; yet the infer- ence to some adequate agent holds. To this ingenious process, Hume would object that it is experience alone which guides in making those successive abstractions, by which we separate the accidental from the essential effect and cause. This, Chalmers himself admits. Hence, as we have no experience of world-mak- ing, no such abstraction is here allowable, to reduce the world to the class of common effects. Besides ; has Hume admitted that it is an effect at all ? In fine, he might urge this difference, that the world is native, while the watch, the plough, the ship bears, to the most unsophisticated observer, empirical marks of being made, and not native.

Let us not then refute Hume from his own premises ; for they are false. It is not experience which teaches us that every effect has its cause, but the a priori reason. (This Chal- mers first asserts, and then unwisely surrenders.) Neither child nor man believes that maxim to be true in the hundredth case, because he has experienced its truth in ninty-nine ; he instinctively believed it in the first case. It is not a true canon of inductive logic, that the tie ot cause and effect can be asserted only so far as experience proves its presence. If it were, would induction ever teach us anything we did not know before ? Would there be any inductive science ? Away with the nonsense ! Grant that the world is a "singular effect." It is a phenomenon, it <vOuld not be without a cause of its being, either extrinsic, or in- trinsic. And this we know, not by experience, but by one of those primitive judgments of the reason, which alone make experience intelligible and \alid.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I9

But may not this universe have the ground of its being in Can the Present Uni- i^^elf? This is another evasion of the athe- verse be the result of ists. Grant, they Say, that nothing cannot an Infinite Series of produce Something. Theists sfo outside the " ■ universe to seek its cause ; and when they sup-

pose they have found it in a God, they are unavoidably driven to represent Him as uncaused from without,eternal, self-existent,and necessary. Now it is^ simpler hpyothesis, just to suppose that the universe which we see, is the uncaused, eternal, self-existent, necessary Being. Why may we not adopt it? Seeing we must run back to the mystery of some uncaused, eternal being, whv may we not accept the obvious teaching of nature and experience and conclude that this is it ? Since the organisms which adorn this universe are all temporal, and since the earth and other stars move in temporal cycles, we shall then have to suppose that the infinite past eternity, through which this self-existent universe has existed, was made up of an infinite succession of these organisms and cycles, each previous one producing the next : as the infi- nite future eternity which will be. But what is absurd in such a hypothesis ?

Now I will not repl}^ with Dr. Clarke and others, that if the universe is eternal, it must be necessar\' ; and sw^s.^'^^'^'^''''''' ^"' this necessity must make its substance homo- geneous and unchangeable throughout infinite time and space. It might be plausibly retorted, that this ten- dency to regular, finite organisms, which we see, was the v^cy necessity of nature inherent in matter. Nor does it seem to me solid to say, with Robert Hall in his sermon, Tur- rettin, and others, that an eternal series of finite durations is impossible ; because if each particular part had a begin- ning, while the series had none, we should have the series existing before its first member ; the chain stretching far- ther back 'than its farthest link. The very supposition was, that the series had no first member. Is a past eternity any more impossible to be made up of the addition of an in- finite number of finite parts, than an abstract infinite future? Surely not. Now there is to be just such an infinite future : namely, your and my immortality, which, although it may not be measured by solar days and years, will undoubtedly be composed of parts of successive time infinitely multiplied. But to this future eternity, it would be exactly parallel to object, that we make each link in it have an end, while the whole is endless ; which would involve the same absurdity, of a chain extended forward after the last link was ended. The answer again is : that according to the supposition, there is no last link, the num- ber thereof being infinite. In a word, what mathematician does not know that infinitude may be generated by the addition of finites repeated an infinite number of times ?

20 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Turrettin, among many ingenious argumenls, advances Tunetiin's Argu- another which seems more respectable. It is ment from Unequal In- in substance this: If this universe has no fi"'''^s. Creator, then its past duration must be a proper

and absolute infinity. But created things move or succeed each other in finite times. See, for instance, the heavenly bodies : The sun revolves on its axis daily ; around its orbit, annually. If this state of things has been eternal, there must have been an infinite number of days, and also an infinite number of years. But since it requires three hundred and sixty-five days to a year, we have here two temporal infinities, both proper and absolute, yet one three hundred and sixty-five times as large as the other ! Now, the mathematicians tell us, that proper infinities may be unequal ; that an infinite plane, for instance, may be conceived as constituted of infinite straight lines infinitely numerous ; and an infinite solid, of an infinite number of such planes, superposed the one on the other. But it is at least questionable, whether the evasion is valid against Turrettin's argument. For these differing infinities are in different dimensions, of length, breadth and thickness. Can there be, in the same dimension, two lines, each infinite in length, and yet the one three hundred and sixty- five as great as the other, in length ?

Turrettin attempts to reply to the answer drawn from the eternity a parte post, against the metaphysical argument. The atheist asks us : Since (as theists say) a finite soul is to be immortal, there will be a specimen of a temporal infinity formed of finite times infinitely repeated : Why may there not have been a similar infinite duration a parte ante? Because, says our Text-book : That which was, but is past, cannot be fairlv com- pared with a future which will never be past. Again : a thing destined never to end may have a beginning; but it is impossible to believe that a thing which actually has ended, never had a be- ginning. Because, the fact that the thing came to an end proves that its cause was outside of itself The last remark introduces us to a solid argument, and it is solid, because it brings us out of the shadowy region of infinity to the solid ground of causa- tion. It is but another way of stating the grand, the unan- swerable refutation of this atheistic theory : a series composed only of contingent parts must be, as a whole, contingent. But the contingent cannot be eternal, because it is not self-existent. This argument is explicated in the following points :

(i.) Take any line of generative organisms, for instance: (oak trees bearing acorns, and those acorns rearing oaks, e. g.) the being of each individual in the series demands an adequate cause. When we push the inquiry back one step, and ask the cause of the parent which (seemingly) caused it, we find precisely the same difficulty unanswered. Whatever distance wc run back along the line, we clearly see no approach is made towards finding the adequate cause of the series, or of the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 21

earliest individual considered. Hence it is wholly unreasonable to suppose that the introduction of infinitude into the series helps to give us an adequate cause. We only impose on our- selves with an undefined idea. Paley's illustration here is as just as beautiful. Two straight parallel lines pursued, ever so far, make no approximation ; they will never meet, though infi- nitely extended.

(2.) An adequate cause existing at the time the phenomenon arises, must be assigifed for every effect. For a cause not present at the rise of the effect, is no cause. Now then ; when a given oak was sprouted, all the previous oaks and acorns of its line, save one or two, had perished. Was this acorn, even with its parent oak, the adequate cause of the whole structure of the young tree, including the ingenious contrivances thereof ? Surely not. But the previous dead oaks and acorns are no cause ; for they are not there. An absent cause is no cause. The origi- nal cause of this oak is not in the series at all.

(3.) Even if we permit ourselves to be dazzled with the notion that somehow the infinitude of the series can account for its self-productive power ; this maxim is obvious : that in a series of transmitted causes, the whole power of the cause must be successively in each member of the series. For each one could only transmit what power it received from its immediate predecessor; and if at any stage, any portion of the causative power were lost, all subsequent stages must be without it. But evidently no one generation of acorns ever had power or intelligence to create the subtle contrivances of vegetable life in their progeny ; and to suppose that all did, is but multiplying the absurdity.

(4) This question .should be treated according to the atheist's point of view, scientifically: Science always accepts testimony in preference to hypothesis. Now there is a testi- mony, that of the Mosaic Scripture, as supported by universal tradition, which says that all series of organisms began in the creative act of an intelligent first Cause. The atheist may object, that men, as creatures themselves, have no right of their own knowledge, to utter such traditionary testimony ; for they could not be present before the organisms existed to witness how they were brought into existence. The only pretext for such tradition would be that some prior superhuman Being, who did witness man's production, revealed to him how he was produced : but whether any such prior Being existed, is the very thing in debate, and so may not be taken for granted.

True ; but the existence of the testimony must be granted ; for it is a fact that it exists, and it must be accounted for. And the question is, whether the only good account is not, that the universe did have an intelligent Cause, and that this Cause taught primeval man whence he originated. Otherwise, not only is the universe left unaccounted for, but the universal tradition.

22 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

(5) Science exalts experience above hypothesis even more than testimony. Now, the whole state of the world bears the appearance of recency. The recent discovery of new conti- nents, the great progress of new arts since the historic era began, and the partial population of the earth by man, all belie the eternity of the human race. But stronger still, geology proves the creation, in time, of race after race of animals, and the comparatively recent origin of man, by her fossil records. These show the absolute beginning of genera. And the attempt to account for them by the development theory (Chambers or Darwin) is utterly repudiated by even the better irreligious phil- osophers ; for if there is anything that Natural History has established, it is that organic life is -separated from inorganic forces, mechanical, chemical, electrical or other, by inexorable bounds ; and 'CcvsJi genera may begin or end, but never transmute themselves into other geiiera.

As I pointed out, there are but two hypotheses by which

„ , . the demonstration of an eternal, intelligent,

Pantheism. ^ r , r^ 1 1 j t-i

personal first Cause can be evaded. Ine one

has just been discussed; the other is the pantheistic. No sepa- rate first Cause of the universe need be assigned, it says, because the universe is God. The first Cause and the whole creation are supposed to be one substance, world-god, possessing all the attributes of both. As extremes often meet, pantheism leads to the same practical results with atheism. Aristotle, perhaps the most sagacious of pagan thinkers, was willing to postulate the eternity, a parte ante, of the series of organisms. But he, none the less, taught the existence of a God who, though in a sense an Aninta Mundi, was yet an intelligent and active infinite Cause. Hence :

The ancient form of pantheism, probably peripatetic in its source, admitted that matter, dead, senseless, _Jenpatetic Panthe- divisible, cannot be the proper seat of intelli- gence and choice, which are indivisible ; and that the universe is full of marks of intelligent design, so that an Anima Miindi, an intelligent Principle, must be admitted in the universe. Yes, I reply, it must, and that personal. Because it obviously has intelligence, choice, and will ; and how can per- sonality be better defined ? Nor can it inhabit the universe as a soul its body, not being limited to it in time or space, nor bearing that relation to it. Not in time ; because, beins;- eternal, it existed a whole past eternity before it ; for we have proved the latter tem- poral. Not in space ; for we have seen this Intelligence eternal ages not holding its nbi in space by means of body ; and tiiere is not a single reason for supposing that it is now limited to the part of space which bodies occupy. It is not connected with matter by any tie of animality; because immensely the larger part of matter is inanimate.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 23

Modern pantheism appears either in the hypothesis of Spi- noza, the Jew, or in that of the later German ^^PantheismofSpmo- j^eahsts. Both see that even the material universe teems with intelligent contrivances : and more, that the nobler part, that known by consciousness, and so, ipost immediately known, is a world of thought and feeling in human breasts. Hence intelligence and will must be accounted for, as well as matter. Now, Spinoza's first position is : There can be no real substance, except it be self-existent, and so, eternal. That is : it is incredible that any true sub- stance can pass from JiiJiil into esse. 2d. All the self-existent must be one ; this is unavoidable from the unity of its charac- teristic attribute. 3d. The one real substance must therefore be eternal, infinite, and necessarily existent. Hence, 4th. all other seeming beings are not real substance, but modes of exis- tence of this sole being. . 5th. All possible attributes, however seemingly diverse, must be modes, nearer or remote, of this Being ; and it is necessary therefore to get rid of the prej- udice, that modes of thought and will and modes of extension cannot be referred to the same substance. Hence this is the true account of the universe. All material bodies (so called) are but different modes of extension, in which the necessary substance projects himself; and all personal spirits (so called) are but modes of thought and will, in which the same being pulsates.

Now you see that the whole structure rests on two unproved and preposterous assumptions : that real substance cannot be except it be self-existent ; and that the self-existent can be but one. The human mind is incapable of demonstrating either.

Says the modern idealist : Let the mind take nothing for granted, except the demonstrated ; and it will MSernldTalist ^^^ find that it really knows nothing save its con- sciousnesses. Of what is it conscious ? Only of its own subjective states. Men fancy that these must be re- ferred to a subject called mind, spirit, self; as the substance of which they are states. So they fancy that they find objective sources for their sensations, and objective limits to their volitions ; but if it fancies it knows either, it is only by a subjective con- sciousness. These, after all, are its only real possessions. Hence, it has no right to assert either substantive self or objective matter ; it only knows, in fact, a series of self-consciousnesses. Hence ; our thinking and willing constitute our being. Hence, too, the whole seeming objective world is only educed from a non-existence as it is thought by us. The total residuum then, is an imper- sonal power of thought, only existing as it exerts its self-con- sciousness in the varions beings of the universe, (if there is a universe) and in God. Its subjective consciousnesses constitute spiritual substance (so-called,) self, fellow-man, God ; and its ob- jective, the seeming objective material bodies of the universe.

24 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Against both these forms of pantheism, I present the fol- Refutation. i. In- lowing outhne of a refutation, (i.) If the tuition must be accept- mind may not trust the intuition which refers ed as valid. q\\ attributes and affections to their sub-

stances, and which gives real objective sources for sensations, it may not beheve in its intuitive self-consciousness, nor in that intuition of cause for every phenomenon, on which • Spinoza founds the belief in his One Substance. Falsus hi 7nio; fahus in omnibus. There is an end of all thinking. That the intui- tions above asserted, are necessary and primary, I prove by this : that every man, including the idealist, unavoidably makes them. (2.) We are each one conscious of our personality. You cannot pronounce the words "self," Ego, self- pli?s°mV''pTrLTali;"" consciousness ; but that you have implied it. Hence, if we think according to our own sub- jective law, we cannot think another intelligence and will, with- out imputing to it a personality. Least of all, the supreme in- telligence and will. To deny this is to claim to be more perfect than God. But worse yet ; if I am not a person, my nature is a lie, and thinking is at an end. If I am a person, and as the pantheist says, I am God, and God is I, then he is a person ; and the pantheistic system is still self-contradicted.

(3.) Modes of extension and modes of thought and will ,^ , . , cannot be attributes of one substance. Mat-

Lxtension and .,...,,

Thought cannot be re- ter IS divisible : neither consciousness, nor ferred to a common thought, nor feeling is ; therefore the sub- s ance. Stance which thinks is indivisible. Matter is

extended ; has form ; has relative bulk and weight. All these properties are impossible to be thought of any function of spirit, as relevant to them. Who can conceive of a thought triturated into many parts, as a stone into grains of sand ; of a resentment split into halves ; of a conception which is so many fractions of an inch longer or thicker than another ; of an emotion triangular or circular, of the top and bottom of a volition ?

(4.) If there is but one substance To FIou, the eternal, self-

,^ ^ . existent, necessary ; then it must be homoire-

If Spmoza true. To 1 • i- • 1 1 --ri ■ • .1 . • .

I I'.v cannot vary. neous and indivisible, ihis is at least a just

argumcntuvi ad hominejn for Spinoza. Did he not infer the necessary unity of all real substance, from the force of its one characteristic attribute, self and necessary exis- tence? Now, this immanent necessity, which is so imperative as to exclude plurality; must it not also exclude diversity; or at least contrariety? How then can this one, unchangeable substance exist at the same time in different and even contra- dictory states ; motion and rest ; heat and cold ; attraction and repulsion ? How can it, in its modes of thought and will, at the same time love in one man, and hate in another, the same object? How believe and disbelieve the same thing?

. OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY.. 2$

(5) On this scheme, there can be no responsibihty, moral

No Evil nor Good. S°°^ °^, ^^^^' S^^^^' '^'""^'f' nghteous penalty, or moral government 01 the world. All states of feeling, and all volitions are those of To f/a^. Satan's wrong volitions are but God willing, and his transgressions, God acting. By what pretext can the Divine Will be held up as a moral standard? Anything which a creature wills, is God's will.

(6.) And this because, next, pantheism is a scheme of stark ,. ^ necessity. Necessity of this kind is inconsis-

tent with responsibility. But again ; it contra- dicts our consciousness of free-agency. We know, by our con- sciousness, that in many things we act freely, we do what we do, because we choose ; we are conscious that our souls determine themselves. But if Pantheism were true, every volition, as well as every other event, would be ruled by an iron fate. So avowed stoicism, the pantheism of the Old World : so admits Spinoza. And consistently ; for Tu IJai^, impersonal, developing itself ac- cording to an immanent, eternal necessity, must inevitably pass through all those modifications of thought and extension, which this necessity dictates, and no others ; and the acts of God are as fated as ours.

(7.) I retort upon the pantheist that picture which he so

much delights to unfold in fanciful and glow- God would have all • „• TJi-l-.^ -U UJT-~

Sin and Woe. ^^S g"ise. Pantheism, says he, by deifymg

nature, clothes everything which is sweet or grand with the immediate glory of divinity, and ennobles us by placing us perpetually in literal contact with God. Do we look without on the beauties of the landscape ? Its loveliness is but one beam of the multiform smile upon His face. The glory of the sun is the flash of His eye. The heavings of the restless sea are but the throbs of the divine bosom, and the innumerable stars are but the sparkles of His eternal brightness. And when we look within us, we recognize in every emotion which enno- bles or warms our breasts, the aspirations, the loves, the grati- tudes which bless our being, the pulses of God's own heart beat- ing through us. Nay, but, say I, are the manifestations of the universal Being, all lovely and good? If pantheism is true, must we not equally regard all that is abhorrent in nature, the rending thunder, and the rushing tornado, the desolating earth- quake and volcanos, the frantic sea lashing helpless navies into wreck, as the throes of disorder or ruin in God ? And when we picture the scenes of sin and woe, which darken humanity, the remorse of the villain's privacy, the orgies of crime and cruelty hidden beneath the veil of night, the despairing death- beds, the horrors of battle fields, the wails of nations growing pale before the pestilence, the din of burning and ravaged cities, and all the world of eternal despair itself, we see in the whole but the agony and crime of the divine Substance. Would it then be best called Devil or God ? Since suffering and sin are

26 ' SYLLABUS AND NOTES

SO prevalent in this world, we may call it Pan-diabolism, with more propriety than pantheism. Nor is it any relief to this ab- horrent conclusion, to say that pain and evil are necessitated, and are only seeming evils. Consciousness declares them real.

SYLLABUS

1. State the Evolution Theory of man's origin, in its recent form; and show its Relation to the Argument for God's existence.

2. Show the Defects in the pretended Argument for this Descent of man by Evolution.

3. Does the Theory weaken the Teleological Argument for the Existence ot a. Personal God.

See "Origin of 'Species" and "Descent of Man," by Dr. Charles Darwin, " Lay Sermons," by Dr. Thos. Huxley, " Physical Basis of Life," by Dr. Stir- ling. Lectures (Posthumous) of Prof. Louis Agassiz, "What is Darwinism?" by Dr. Ch Hodge, "Reign of Law," by the Duke of Argyle.

TN the previous Lecture, I concluded the brief examination "^ of the atheistic theory, accounting for the Universe as an Relation of Evolu- eternal series, with these words : "Genera may tion to Teleological begin or end, but never transmute themselves Argument. ^^to Other geucvar We found the fatal

objections to* the scheme of a self-existent, infinite series un-- caused from without, in these facts : That no immediate antecedent was adequate cause for its immediate successor : And that the previous links in the series could not because; be- cause totally absent from the rise of the sequent effect. Thus the utter fallacy was detected, which seeks to impose on our minds by the vague infinitude of the series as a whole. We were taught that no series made up solely of effects, each contingent, can, as a whole, be self-existent. Thus perished that evasion of the atheist.

Obviously, if there is any expedient for resuscitating it, this must be found in the attempt to prove that the law, " Like pro- duces Like," is not the whole explanation of the series. We have demonstrated that, by that law, it is impossible the series can be self-existent. Hence, the best hope of Atheism is, to attemi)t to prove that the Like does not produce merely the Like ; that the series contains within itself a power of differentiating its effects, at least slightly. Thus materialists and atheists have been led in our day, either by deliberate design, or by a species of logical instinct, to attempt the construction of an " evolution theory." The examination of this attempt, thus becomes necessary in order to complete the argument for God's existence, on this, the last conceivable point of attack.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2/

The evolution hypothesis is, indeed, no novelty. It is, after all its pretended modern experiments, but a revival of the "atomic theory" of the Greek atheist, Democritus, adopted by the Epicurean school. Its ap- plication to the descent of man from some lower animal, has often been attempted, as by Lord Monboddo, who almost exactly anticipated Dr. Chas. Darwin's conclusion. In the eyes of some modern Physicists, however, it has received new plausibility from the more intelligent -speculations of the Naturalist La ]\Iarck. and the " Vestiges of Creation " ascribed to Mr. Robert Cham- bers. But it appears in its fullest form, in the ingenious works of Dr. Chas. Darwin, "Origin of Species," and " Descent of Man." I therefore take this as the object of our inquiry.

This Naturalist thinks that he has found the law of repro- duction, in animated nature, that " Like pro- andSurvJvti!' ""*''''' duces Like," modified by the two laws of "nat- ural selection " and a survival of the fittest." By the former, nature herself, acting unintelligently, tends in all her reproductive processes, to select those copulations which are most adapted to each other By the latter, she ordains, equally without intelligence, that the fittest, or ablest progeny shall sur- vive at the expense of the inferior. These supposed laws he illustrates by the race-varieties (certainly very striking) which have been produced in genera and species whose original unity is admitted by all, through the art of the bird-fancier and stock- rearer, in breeding. The result of these laws, modifying the great law of reproduction, would be a slight differentiation of succes- sors from predecessors, in any series in animated nature. This difference at one step might be almost infinitesimal. This coiia- tus of Nature towards evolution, being totally blind, and moving at hap-hazard, might result in nothing through a myriad of experiments, or instances, and only evolve something in advance of the antecedents, in the ten thousandth case ; yet, if we postu- late a time sufficiently vast, during which the law has been thus blindly working, the result may be the evolution of man, the highest animal, from the lowest form of proto-plastic life.

I. The tendency of this scheme, is atheistic. Some of its

_ , . , . . • advocates may disclaim the consequence, and bcheme Atheistic. , , . , . •' . . r ^ i i A

declare their recognition oi a (_rod and Crea- tor, we hope, sincerely. But the undoubted tendency of the speculation,will be to lead its candid adherents, where Dr. Leopold Bijchner has placed himself, to blank materialism and atheism. For the scheme is an attempt to evolve what theists call the creation without a Creator ; and as we shall see, the bearing of the hypothesis is towards an utter obliteration of the teleolog- ical argument. 2nd. In assigning man a brute origin, it encourages common men to regard themselves as still brutes. Have brutes any religion? 3d. The scheme ignores all substantive distinction between spirit and matter, by evolving

28 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the former out of the functions of mere animahty. But if there be no soul in man there is, practically, no religion for him.

2. The favorite law of "natural selection " involves in its very

name a sophistical idea. Selection is an at- Selection implies ^-j-jj^y^g Qf free-agency, and implies intelligent

choice. But the " Nature " of the evolutionist is unintelligent. The cause, if it be a cause, supposed by him in his natural selection, acts blindly and by hap-hazard. Now, whenever we apply the idea of selection, or any other wdiich expresses free-agency, to such effects : we know that we are speaking inaccurately and by a mere trope. How much more sophistical is it to ascribe the force of a permanent and regular law, selecting effects, to that which is but chance ? This is but giving us metaphor, in place of induction. It is farther noted by Agassiz, that the principle of life, or cause in animated nature, notoriously and frequently produces the same results under diverse conditions of action ; and diverse results again, under the same conditions. These facts prove that it is not the species of variable cause painted by Darwin, and does not dif- ferentiate its effects by his supposed law of natural selection.

3. We have seen that the vastness of the time needed for. the evolution of man from the lowest animated form, by these laws of natural selection, working blindly and effecting at any one movement the most minute differentiations, is not only con- ceded, but claimed by evolutionists. Then, since the blind cause probably has made ten thousand nugatory experiments for evary one that was an advance, the fossil remains of all the experiments, of the myriads of genera of failures, as well as the few genera that were successes, should be found in more immense bulk. And especially fossil Natural History should present us with the full history of both sides of the blind process ; with the remains of the degraded genera, as well as the " fittest " and " survivin'g " genera. The fossil-history of the former ought to be ten thousand times the fullest ! But in the presence of such a history, how preposterous would a theory of evolution appear? For, the very essence of this theory is the idea of a continual advancement and improvement in nature.

The evolution theor}'- is inconsistent with the wide geographical diffusion of species, and especially ' of the higher species. If these are the results of the " survival of the fittest," under local conditions of existence and propagation, is it not unaccountable that these, and especially man, the highest species of all, should always have been found under the most diverse and general conditions, in contrasted climates? But if we pass to the lower species, such as the moluscs and crustaceans, the difficulty is as great, because they have no adequate means of locomotion to migrate from the spots where the local con- ditions of their development existed.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2g>

4. But next ; where improved race-varieties have actually . No Improvement by t)een developed, it may well be questioned Selection, save under a whether the selections of the progenitors have Rational Providence. g^gj- ^gg^ " natural," in the sense of the evo- lutionist. The marked instances of which Darwin makes so much use, are the result of the breeder's art : (as the Dur- ham cattle) that is, of a rational providence. And when we surrender any individuals of the varieties to the domin- ion of 'nature,' the uniform tendency is to degradation. What more miserable specimens of cattle and swine are ever seen ;. what individuals less calculated for " survival " in the struggle for existence, than the neglected progeny of the marvellously developed English live-stock, when left to take their chances- with the indigenous stock of ill-cultivated districts ? i\gain, many Naturalists tell us that when any incidental cause has- been applied to a given species, producing variations in some individuals and their progeny, the difference is larger at first,. and becomes more and more minute afterwards. The inference seems irresistible, that such variations must have fixed and narrow limits. Naturalists are familiar with the tendency of all varieties, artificially produced by the union of differing progeni- tors, to revert back to the type of one or other of their ances- tors. Thus, all breeders of live-stock recognize the tendency of their improved breeds to "fly to pieces;" and they know that nothing but the most artful vigilance in selecting parents pre- vents this result. Without this watchful control, the peculiari- ties of on6 or the other original varieties would re-appear in the progeny, so exaggerated, as to break up the improved type, and give them instead, a heterogeneous crowd, the individuals varying violently from each other and from the desired type, and probably inferior to either of the original varieties com- pounded.

Again : is the " survival of the fittest " a " natural " fact ? I answer ; No. The natural tendency of the uranrsu?vivr°'^''' violences of the strongest is, on the whole, to increase the hardship of the conditions under which the whole species and each individual must gain subsist- ence. What better instance of this law needs to be sought, than in the human species ; where we always see the savage anarchy, produced by the violence of the stronger, reduce the whole tribe to poverty and destitution ? WHiy else is it, that savages are poorer and worse provided for than civilized men ? Couple this law with another: that the most pampered individuals in any species, are not the most prolific ; and we shall see that the natural tendency of animal life is, in the general, to the survival of the inferior. Thus the average wild Parnpa horse, or "mus- tang" pony, is far inferior to the Andalusian steed, from which he is descended. We thus find an emphatic confirmation of the conclusion which Hugh Miller drew from the " testimony

30

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of the rocks," that the natural tendency of the fossil genera has been to degradation and not to development.

Well does Dr. Sterling remark here : " Natural conjecture is always equivocal, insecure and many-sided. It may be said that ancient warfare, for instance, giving victory always to the personally ablest and bravest, must have resulted in the im- provement of the race. Or, that the weakest being left at home, the improvement was balanced by deterioration. Or, that the ablest were necessarily most exposed to danger. And

so according to ingenuity usque ad infijiitmn. Trustworthy

conclusions are not possible to this method."

5. I have not yet seen any reason for surrendering the rule,

hitherto held by Naturalists, that in the animal ^^Argument from Hy- ^.Qj-ld, hybrids, if true hybrids, are infertile.

The familiar instance is that of the mule. The genera asinus and eguus can propagate an offspring, but that mule offspring can propagate nothing. If there are any ex- ceptions to this law, they are completely consistent with the rule that hybrids cannot perpetuate their hybrid kind. If they have any progeny, it is either absolutely infertile ; or it has itself reverted back to one pf the original types. It is strange that Dr. Huxley should himself appeal to this as a valid law ; when its validity is destructive of his own conclusions. In his "Lay Sermons," p. 295, when it suits his purpose to assert that natural variation has, in a given case, established a true species which is new, he appeals to the fact which is claimed: that this new species propagated its kind; which proved it a true and permanent species. Which is to say, that hybrids cannot propagate their kind ; for it is by this law it is known that they do not form permanent species. But now, if new varieties really arose from natural selection, to the extent claimed by evolutionists, must they not fall under the hybrid class too decisively, ever to propagate their type per- manently ?

6. This process imagined by Dr. Darwin, if it existed, would

be purely an animal one. He makes it a result

Evolution cannot ac- of physical laws merely. Then, if there were a count tor iVlincL. *- "^

development by such a law, it should be the animal instincts and bodily organs, which are developed in the higher species. But it isnot so. Man is the highest, and when he is compared with other viavivialia, he is a feebler beast. The young infant has far less instinct and locomotion than the young fowl. The man has less instinct, less animal capacity, less strength, blunter senses, than the eagle, or the elephant, and less longevity than the goose. That which makes him a nobler creature is his superior intelligence with the adaptation thereto of his inferior animal instincts. He rules other animals and is "Lord of Creation " by his mind.

7. This, then, must also be explained by Dr. Darwin, as an

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3 1

evolution from instinct and animal appetites ; just as he accounts for the evolution of the human hand, from the forepaw of an ape; so all the wonders of consciousness, intellect, taste, con- science, religious belief, are to be explained as the animal outgrowth of gregarious instincts, and habitudes cultivated through them. To any one who has the first correct idea of construing the facts of consciousness, this is simply monstrous. It of course denies the existence of any substance that thinks, distinct from animated matter. It ignores the distinction between the instinctive and the rational motive in human actions ; thus making free-agency, moral responsibility, and ethical science impossible. The impossibility of this genesis is peculiarly plain in this : that it must suppose all these psycho- logical acts and habits gradually superinduced. There is' first, in some earlier generation of men, a protoplastic responsibility, free agency, reason, conscience, which are half, or one quarter animal instinct still, and the rest mental! Whereas, every man who ever interpreted his own acts of soul to himself, knows intui- tively, that this is the characteristic of them all ; that they are contrasted with the merely animal acts, in all their stages and in all their degrees of weakness or strength. A feeble conscience is no nearer appetite, in its intrinsic quality, than the conscience of a Washington or a Lee.

In a word : Consciousness has her facts, as truly as physicks. These facts show that man belongs to a certain ge7iiis spiritually, more even than corporeally. And that genus is consciously separated by a great gulf, from all mere animal nature. It cannot be developed thence.

8. The utmost which can possibly be made of the evolution theory, is that it may be a hypothesis possibly atlesT"^ "°' ^'°'"'^ tr^e, even after all the arguments of its friends are granted to be valid. In fact, the scheme is far short of this. The careful reader of these works will find, amidst extensive knowledge of curious facts, and abundance of fanciful ingenuity, many yawning chasms between asserted facts and inductions; and many a substitution of the " must be " for the " may be." But when we waive this, we still find the theory unverified, and incapable of verification. One need desire no juster statement of the necessity of actual verification, in order to mature a hypothesis into a demonstration, than is given and happily illustrated by Dr. Huxley. " Lay Sermons," pp. 85, 6. Until either actual experiment or actual observation has veri- fied the expectation of the hypothesis ; and verified it in 'such away as to make it clear to the mind, that the expected result followed the antecedent as a propter hoc and not a mere post hoc ; that hypothesis, however plausible, and seemingly satisfy- ing, is not demonstrated. But has Dr. Darwin's theory been verified in any actual case ? Has any one seen the marsupial ape breed the man, in fact? The author of the scheme himself

3 2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

knows that verification is, in the nature of the case, impossible. The dates at which he supposes the evolutions took place, pre- cede the earhest rational experience of man, according to his own scheme, by vast ages. The differentiations which gradually wrought it were, according to him, too slight and gradual to be contained in the memory of one dispensation of man's history. The connecting links of the process are forever lost. Hence the utmost which these Naturalists could possibly make of their hypothesis, were all their assumptions granted, would be the concession that it contained a curious possibility.

These speculations are mischievous in that they present to minds already degraded, and in love with Dangerous to Morals. ^^^^-^ ^^^ degradation, a pretext for their mate- rialism, godlessness and sensuality. The scheme can never prevail generally among mankind. The self-respect, the con- science, and the consciousness of men will usually present a sufficient protest and refutation. The world will not permaently' tolerate the libel and absurdity, that this wondrous creature, man, " so noble in reason, so infinite in faculties, in form and m.oving so express and admirable, in action so like an angel, in apprehension so like a God," is but the descendant, at long re- moves, of a mollusc or a tadpole !

The worthlessness of mere plausibilities concerning the Circumstantial evi- origm of the universe, is yet plainer when set dence refuted by pa- in contrast with that inspired testimony upon '■"l'^- the subject, to which Revealed Theology will

soon introduce us. Hypothetical evidence, even at its best estate, comes under the class of circumstantial evidence. Ju- dicial science, stimulated to accuracy and fidelity by the prime interests of society in the rights and the life of its members, has correctly ascertained the relation between circumstantial proof and competent parole testimony. In order to rebut the word of such a witness, the circumstantntial evidence must be an ex- clusive demonstration : it must not only satisfy the reason that the criminal act might have been committed in the supposed way, by the supposed persons ; but that it was impossible, it could have been committed in any other way. In the absence of parole testimony, every enlightened judge would instruct his jury, that the defence isjentitled to try the hypothesis of the ac- cuser by this test : If any other hypothesis can be invented, that is even purely imaginary, to which the facts granted in the circumstantial evidence can be reconciled by the defence, that is proof of invalidity in the accusing hypothesis. Let us sup- pose a crime committed without known eye-witnesses. The prosecutors examine every attendant circumstance minutely, and study them profoundly. They construct of them a sup- position that the crime was committed in secret by A. They show that this supposition of his guilt satisfies every fact, so far as known. They reason with such ingenuity, that every

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. ^^

mind tends to the conviction that A. must be verily guilty. But now there comes forward an honest man, who declares that he was eye-witness of the crime ; and, that, of his certain knowl- edge, it was done by B., and not by A. On inquiry, it appears that B. was, at that time, naturally capable of the act. Then, unless the prosecutors can attack the credibility of this witness, before his word their case utterly breaks down. The ingenuity, the plausibility of their argument, is now naught. They had shown that, so far as "known facts had gone, the act might have been done by A. But the witness proves that in fact it was done by B. The plausibility of the hypothesis and the ingen- uity of the lawyers are no less : but they are utterly super- seded by direct testimony of an eye-witness. I take this pains to illustrate to you this principle of evidence, because it is usually so utterly ignored by Naturalists, and so neglected even by Theologians. I assert that the analogy is perfect between the case supposed and the pretended evolution argument. Does Revelation bring in the testimony of the divine Eye-wit- ness, because actual Agent, of the genesis of the universe ? Is Revelation sustained as a credible witness by its literary, its in- ternal, its moral, its prophetical, its miraculous evidences ? Then even though the evolution hypothesis were scientifically prob- able, in the light of all known and physical facts and laws, it must yield before this competent witness. Does that theory claim that, naturally speaking, organisms might have been thus produced ? God, the Agent, tells us that, in point of fact, they were otherwise produced. As Omnipotence is an agency con- fessedly competent to any effect whatsoever, if the witness is credible, the debate is ended.

I shall conclude this Lecture by adverting to a consequence which many of Dr. Darwin's followers draw argunS £!.'°^°^'''^ ^^^"^ ^^'^ scheme ; which is really the most im- portant feature connected with it. Dr. Huxley declares that the "Origin of Species" gives the death-blow to that great teleological argument for the existence of God, which has commanded the assent of all the comm.on-sense and all the true philosophy of the human race. He quotes Prof Kolliker, of Germany, as saying that though Darwin retains the teleolog- ical conception, it is shown by his own researches to be a mis- taken one. Says the German savant, "Varieties arise irre- spectively of the notion of purpose of utilty, Naccording to the general laws of nature ; and may be either useful or hurtful, or indifferent." It must be admitted these men interpret the bear- ings of the evolution theory aright ; [and that it does bear against the impregnable evidences of design in God's creation, is a clear proof of its falsehood]. According to this scheme physical causation is blind; but it hits a lucky adapta- tion here and there, without knowing or meaning it, by mere chance, and in virtue of such an infinity of hap-hazard trials 3*

34 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

that it is impossible to miss all the time. Such is the imme- diate, though blind, result of Nature's tendancy to ceaseless variations of structure. Now, when (rarely) she happens to hit a favorable variation, the better adaptation of that organism to the conditions of existence enables it to survive and to prop- agate its type more numerously, where others perish. Where now is the proof of intelligence and design in such a fortuitous adaptation? Mr. Herbert Spencer argues that it is mere "an- thropomorphism," for us to undertake to interpret nature teleo- logically. When we adapt anything to an end, we, of course, design and contrive. But when we therefore assume that the Great Unknowable works by suchthoughts.we are as absurd as though the watch [in the well-known illustration of Dr. Paley] becoming somewhat endowed with consciousness, should con- clude that the consciousness of its Unknown Cause must con- sist of a set of ticking and motions of springs and cogs, because such only are its own functions. Some of these writers dwell much upon the supposed error of our mixing the question of " final causes " with that of efficient causes, in our investigation of nature. They claim that Lord Bacon, in his De Aitgnientis, sustains this condemnation. This is erroneous. He does disap- prove the mixing of the question of final cause with the search after the physical cause. He points out that the former be- longs to Metaphysics, the latter to Physics. Let the ques- tion be, for instance : " Why do hairs grow around the eye- brows?" There are two meanings in this "Why." If it asks the final cause, the answer is: "For the protection of the precious and tender organ beneath the brow." If it asks the physical cause. Lord Bacon's answer is : that a follicular struc- ture of that patch of skin "breedeth a pilous growth." He clearly asserts, in his Metaphysic, that inquiries after the final cause are proper ; and he was emphaticall}' a believer in the teleological argument, as was Newton, with every other great mind of those ages.

Let us clear the way for the exposure of the sophisms Is ourartTumentsus- Stated above, by looking at Spencer's ob- picious because anthro- jection to the anthropomorphism of our Nat- pomorphic .- ^j.^^^ Theology. He would have us believe

that it is all vicious, because founded on the groundless pos- tulate that our thought and contrivance are the model for the mind of God. He would illustrate this, as we saw, by suppos- ing the watch, in Paley's illustration, "to have a consciousness," etc. This simile betrays his sophism at once. The supposi- tion is impossible! If the watch could have a consciousness, it would not be a material machine, but a rational spirit : and then thore would be no absurdity whatever in its liken- ing its own rational consciousness to that of its rational cause. When complaint is made that all our Natural Theology is "an- thropomorphic," what is this but a complaint that our knowl-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 35

edge is human ? If I am to have any knowledge, it must be my knowledge : that is, the knowledge of me, a man ; and so, knowl- edge, according to the forms of human intelligence. All knowl- edge must then be anthropomorphic, in order to be human knowl- edge. To complain of any branch of man's knowledge on this score, is to demand that he shall know nothing ! This, indeed, is verified by Mr. Herbert Spencer, who teaches, on the above ground, that God is only to be conceived of and honored as "The Unknowable ;" and w4io forbids us to ascribe any definite attri- bute, or offer any specific service to Him, lest we should insult Him by making Him altogether such an one as ourselves. I may remark, in passing, that this is equally preposterous in logic, and practically atheistic. The mind only knows substance from properties : if the essentia of an object of thought be abso- lutely unknown, its esse will certainly be more unknown. And how can one be more completely "without God in the world," than he who only knows of a divine Being, to whom he dares not ascribe any attribute, towards w'hom he dares not entertain any definite feeling, and to whom he dares not offer any service ?

But why should our knowledge of a higher spiritual being be suspected, as untrustworthy, because' it is anthropomorphic ? It can only be, because it is suspected that this knowledge is trans- formed, in becoming ours. But now, let it be supposed that the great First Cause created our spirits "in his likeness, after his image," and the ground of suspicion is removed. Then it follows that in thinking "anthropomorphically," we are thinking like God : because God formed us to think like himself. Our conceptions of the divine will then be only limited, not trans- formed, in passing into our kindred, but finite, minds : they re- main valid, as far as they reach. But it may be said : This is the very question : whether a Creator did form our spirits after the likeness of His own? The theists must not assume it at the onset as proved. Very true ; and their opponents shall not be allowed to assume the opposite as proved — they shall not " beg the question " any more than we do. But when our inquiries in Natural Theology lead us to the conclusion that in this respect " we are God's offspring," then He is no longer the " Unknown God." And especially when Revealed Theology presents us the ^ Er/MV ro~j dto~j bpCroo in the "man Christ Jesus," the diffi- culty is completely solved.

To support the teleological argument farther against this

philosophy of blind chance, I remark, first:

^^Chance cannot evolve ^j^^^ j^ jg -^^ ^^ ^^^^3^ j^^^ unreasonable than

the old pagan theory, which referred all the skillful adjustments of creation to a "fortuitious concourse of atoms." This is indeed the same wTetched philosophy: re-vamped and re-furbished, which excited the sarcasm and scorn of Socrates, and was contemptuously discarded b}' the educated pagan mind. It is imposible to persuade the

36 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

common sense of mankind, that blind chance, whose sole attribute is chaotic disorder, is the source of the admirable order of this universal xootioz. Something does not come out of nothing. Our opponents would ask us; since blind chance may, amidst its infinite multitudes of experiments, happen upon any result whatsoever, why may it not sometimes happen upon some results wearing the aspect of orderly adaptation ? My answer is, that the question puts the case falsely. Some- times ! No ! Always. The fact to be accounted for is ; that Nature's results always have an orderly adaptation. I press again this crushing question: How is it that in every one of Na- ture's results, in every organ of every organized creature which is extant, either in living or in fossil natural Histor}', if the struc- ture is comprehended by us, we see some orderly adaptation? Where are Nature's failures? Where the vast remains of the in- finity of her hap-hazard, orderless results? On the evolution theory, they should be a myriad times as numerous as those which possessed orderly adaptation. But in fact, none are found, save a few which are apparent exceptions, because, and only because, we have not yet knowledge enough to compre- hend them. Through every grade of fossil life, if we are able at all to understand the creature whose remains we inspect^ we perceive an admirable adjustment to the conditions of its existence. This is as true of the least developed, as of the most perfect. The gemis may be now totally extinct: because the appropriate conditions of its existence have wholly passed away in the progress of changes upon the earth's surface ; but while those conditions existed, they were beautifully appropriate to the gemis. So, if there is any structure in arr\' existing crea- ture, whose orderly adaptation to an end is not seen, it is only because we do not yet understand enough. Such is the con- clusion of true science. Anatomists before Dr. Harvey saw the valvular membranes in the arteries and veins, opening oppo- site ways. That great man assumed, in the spirit of true science, that they must have their orderly adaptation; and this postulate led him to the grand discovery of the circulation of the blood. Such is the postulate of true, modest science still, as to every structure: it is the pole-star of sound induction. And once more: Contrivance to an end is not limited to organic life reproducing after its kind — the department where the evo- lutionist finds his pretext of "natural selection." The perma- nent inorganic masses also disclose theteleological argument,] ust as clearly as the organic. Sun, moon and stars do not propagate any day! Contrivance is as obvious in the planetary motions and the tides of ocean, as in the eye of the animal. "The un- devout Astronomer is mad". Commodore Maury, in his im- mortal works, has shown us as beautiful a system of adaptations in the wastes of the atmosphere and its currents, as the Nat- ural Historian finds in the realms of life.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 37

Second: I remark that if the theory of the evolutionist were all conceded, the argument from de- suS'tibflftytfvolvS f g^ed adaptation would not be abolished, but only removed one step backward. If we are mistaken in believing that God made every living creature that moveth after its kind : if the higher kinds were in fact all developed from the lowest; then the question recurs: Who planned and adjusted these wondrous powers of development? Who endowed the cell-organs of the first living protoplasm with all this fitness for evolution into the numerous and varied wonders of animal life and function, so diversified, yet all orderly adaptations ? There is a wonder of creative wisdom and power, at least equal to that of the Mosaic genesis. That this point is justly taken, appears thus: Those philosophers who concede (as I conceive, ver}^ unphilosophically and unnecessarily) the theory of " crea- tion by law," do not deem that they have thereby weakened the teleological argument in the least. It appears again, in the language of evolutionists themselves: When they unfold what they suppose to be the results of this system, they utter the words "beautiful contrivance of nature," "wise adjustment" and such like, involuntarily. This is the testimony of their own rea- son, uttered in spite of a perverse and shallow theory.

In fine; when we examine any of these pretended results of fortuity, we always find that the chance-accident was only the occasion, and not the efficient cause, of that result. Says one of the evolutionists: a hurricane may transplant a tree so as to secure its growth. The wind may happen to drop a sapling, which the torrent had torn up, with its roots downward, (they forming the heavier end) into a chasm in the earth, which the same hurricane makes by uprooting a forest tree. But I ask: Who ordains the atmospheric laws which move hurricanes! Who regulated the law of gravity? Who endued the roots of that sapling, as its twigs are not endued, with the power of drawing nutriment from the moist earth? Did the blind hurricane do all this? Whenever they thus attempt to account for a result by natural selection, they tacitly avail themselves of a selected adaptation which is, in every case, a priori to the physical results. Who conferred that prior adaptation and power? "If they had not ploughed with our heifer, they had not found out our riddle."

You may be inclined to ask, why it is that I, who assuredly believe this speculation of recent evolutionists will prove as short-lived as it is shallow, introduce a discussion of it into this venerable and stable science of theology? My reply is: that "Darwinism" happens just now to be the current manifestation, which the fashion of the day gives to the permanent anti-theis- tic tendency in sinful man. As long as men do not like to retain God in their knowledge, the objection to the argument for His existence will re-appear in some form. And the forms will all

38 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

be found cognate. This recent evolution theory verges every year nearer to the pagan atomic theory. In discussing it under its existing aspect, I seek to give you guidance which you will find ad rem, in your dealing with the unbelieving minds of our own day. But I have also given you, in substance, prin- ciples which will be applicable to any phase of the anti-theistic argument.

SYLLABUS

1. How much can Reason infer of the Attributes of God ? His Eternity ? How?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 10. Dick, Lect. 17. Dr. S. Clarke, § i, 2, 5. Char- nock on Attr. Vol. i, Discourse v.

2. His Unity ? How ? Turrettin, Qu. 3. Paley, Nat. Theology. Dr. Dick, Lect. iS. Dr. S. Clarke, §7. Mauiy, Physical Geography of Sea, p. 71.

3. His Spirituahty and Simplicity ? How? Turrettin, Qu. 7. Dick, Lect. 17^ Dr. S. Clarke, §8. Rev. Ro. Hall, Sermon i, Vol. 3d. Thornwell, Lect. 6th, pp. 162-166. Lect. 7th, pp, 186, &c.

4. His Immensity and Infinitude ? How ? Turrettin, Qu. 8 & 9. Dick, Lect- 19. Dr. S. Clarke, \ 6. Charnock, Vol. i. Discourse 7th. Thornwell^ iect. 8th.

5. His Immutabihty ? Turrettin, Qu. 11. Thornwell, Lect 8, ^ 5. Dick, Lect. 20th. Dr. S. Clarke, \ 2. Charnock, Vol. i, Discourse 6th.

TT is exceedingly hard for us to return an exact answer to the -^ question. How much reason can infer of the attributes of

Traditionary knowl- God ? Shall we Say : " So much as the wisest edge not to be separa- pagans, like Plato, discovered of them?" It ted from rational, here, g^j^ remains doubtful how much unacknowl- edged aid he may not have received from Hebrew sources. Many think that Plato received much through Pythagoras and his Egyptian and Mesopotamian researches. Or if we seek to find how far our own minds can go on this subject, without drawing upon the Scriptures, we are not sure of the answer ; because when results have been given to us, it is much easier to discover the logical tie between them and their premises, than to detect unaided both proofs and results. Eu- clid having told us that the square of the hypothenuse equals the squares of the two remaining sides of every right angled triangle, it becomes much easier to hunt up a synthetic argu- ment to prove it, than it would have been to detect this great relation by analysis. But when we approach Natural Theology we cannot forget the attributes which the Scriptures ascribe to God.

Yet some things are as clear as God's being. The first . and most obvious of these attributes is, that

I. 0 s eternity. He has no beginning, and no end. By God's

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 39

eternity divines also intend a third thing : His existence with- out succession. These three propositions express their definition of His eternity : existence not related to time. For the first: His being never had a beginning: for had there ever been a time when the First Cause was not, nothing could ever have existed. So natural reason indicates that His being will never end, by this, that all pagans and philoso- phers make their gods immortal. The account of this conclusion seems to' be, that it follows from God's independ- ence, self-existence, and necessary existence. These show that there can be no cause to make God's being end. The immor- tality of the First Cause then is certain, unless we ascribe to it the power and wish of self-annihilation. But neither of these is possible. What should ever prompt God's will to such a voli- tion ? His simplicity of substance (to be separately proved anon) does not permit the act; for the only kind of destruction of which the universe has any experience, is by disintegration. The necessity of God's existence proves it can never end. The ground of His existence, intrinsic in Himself, is such that it cannot but be operative; witness the fact that, had it been, at any moment of the past infinite duration, inoperative, God and the universe would have been, from that moment, forever impossible.

But that God's existence is without succession, does not . „ seem so clear to natural reason. It is urg^ed

Is It unsuccessive? , t-. , , • ,, , .,^ ... ?» ,

by iurrettm that "God is immense. But if His existence were measured by parts of duration, it would not be incommensurable." This is illogical. Do not the schoolmen themselves say, that essentia and esse are not the same ? To measure the continuance of God's esse by successive parts of time, is not to measure His essence thereby. A similar distinction shows the weakness of Turrettin's second argument : " That because simple and immutable. He cannot exist in succession, for the flux of being from past to present and present to future would be change, and even change of composition." I reply it is God's substance which is simple and immutable; that its subsistence should be a continuance in suces- sion does not imply a change in substance. Nor is it correct metaphysics to say that a subsistence in succession is com- pounded, namely of the essence and the successive momenta of time through which it is transmitted. (See here, Kant.)

Nor is Dr Dick's argument even so plausible: That God's being in a past eternity must be unsuccessive, because an infinite past, composed of successive parts, is impossible; and whatever God's mode of subsistence was, that it is, and will be. An in- finite future made up of a succession of infinitely numerous finite parts is possible, as Dick admits; and so an infinite past thus constituted is equally as possible. Neither is comprehen- sible to our minds. If Turrettin or Charnock only meant that

40 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

God's subsistence is not a succession marked off by changes in His essence or states, their reasonings would prove it. But if it is meant that the divine consciousness of its own existence has no relation to successive duration, I think it unproved, and in- capable of proof to us. Is not the whole plausibility of the no- tion hence; that divines, following that analysis of our idea of our own duration into the succession of our own consciousnesses, (which Locke made so popular in his war against innate ideas,) infer: Since all God's thoughts and acts are ever equally present with Him, He can have no succession of His consciousnesses; and so, no relation to successive time. But the analysis is false (see Lecture viii,) and would not prove the conclusion as to God, if correct. Though the creature's consciousnesses constituted an unsuccessive unit act, as God's do, it would not prove that the consciousness of the former was unrelated to duration. But 2d. In all the acts and changes of creatures, the relation of succes- sion is actual and true. Now, although God's knowledge of these as it is subjective to Himself, is unsuccessive, yet it is doubtless correct, i. e., true to the objective facts. But these have actual succession. So that the idea of successive duration must be in God's thinking. Has He not all the ideas we have; and infinitely more? But if God in thinking the objective, ever thinks successive duration, can we be sure that His own con- sciousness of His own subsistence is unrelated to succession in time? The thing is too high for us. The attempt to debate it will only produce one of those "antinomies" which emerge, when we strive to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Does reason show the First Cause to be one or plural? If

,, . r^. or^e • whence the stroncr tendency to poly-

2. Unity of God. , , • -, t-i • i ^ i • j • ,

tneism ? i his may be explamed in part

by the craving of the common mind for concrete ideas. We may add the causes stated by Turrettin : That man's sense of weakness and exposure prompts him to lean upon superior strength: That gratitude and admiration persuade him to deify human heroes and benefactors at their deaths : And that the copiousness and variety of God's agencies have suggested to the incautious a plurality of agents. Hodge (Theol. P. I. Ch, 3.) seems to regard Pantheism as the chief source of polytheism. He believes that pantheistic con- ceptions of the universe have been more persistent and prevalent in all ages than any other. "Polytheism has its origin in nature- worship: and nature worships rests on the assumption that

nature is God."

But I am persuaded a more powerful impulse to polytheism arises from the co-action of two natural principles in the absence of a knowledge of God in Christ. One is the sense of weakness and dependence, craving a superior power on whom to lean. The other is the shrinking of conscious guilt from infinite holiness and power. The creature needs a God: the sinner fears a God.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 4 1

The expedient which results is, the invention of intermediate and mediating divinities, more able than man to succour, yet less awful than the infinite God, Such is notably the account of the invention of saint worship, in that system of baptized polytheism known as Romanism. And here we see the divine adaptation of Christianity; in that it gives us Christ, very man, our brother: and very God, our Redeemer.

Reason does pronounce God one. But here again, I repu- diate weak supports. Argues Turrettin : If there are more than one, all equal, neither is God : if unequal, only the highest is God. This idea of exclusive supremacy is doubtless essential to religious trust ; Has it, thus far, been shown essen- tial to the conception of a First Cause ? Were there two or more independent eternal beings, neither of them would be an infalli- ble object of trust. But has it been proved as yet, that we are entitled to expect such a one ? Again, Dr. S. Clarke urges : The First Cause exists necessarily : but (a.) This necessity must operate forever, and everywhere alike, and, (b,) This absolute sameness must make oneness. Does not this savour of Spino- z'lsm ? Search and see. As to the former proposition : all that we can infer from necessary existence is, that it cannot but be just what it is. What it is, whether singular, dual, plural ; that is just the question. As to the 2d proposition, sameness of operation does not necessarily imply oneness of effect. Have two successive nails from the same machine, necessarily numer- ical identity ? Others argue again : We must ascribe to God every conceivable perfection, because, if not, another more perfect might be conceived ; and then he would be the God. I reply, yes, if he existed. It is no reasoning to make the capacity of our imaginations the test of the substantive existence of object- ive things. Again, it is argued more justly, that if we can show that the eternal self-existent Cause must be absolute and infinite in essence, then His exclusive unity follows, for that which is infinite is all-embracing as to that essence. Covering, so to speak, all that kind of being, it leaves no room for anything of its kind coordinate with itself. Just as after defining a universe, we cannot place any creature outside of it: so, 'if God is infinite, there can be but one. Whether He is infinite we shall inquire.

The valid and practical argument, however, for God's unity Argued from Inter- is the convergency of design and inter- dependence of all His dependency of all His works. All dualists, ^^^'^'^^ ' indeed, from Zoroaster to Manes, find their

pretexts in the numerous cross-effects in nature, seeming to show cross-purposes : — e. g. one set of causes educes a fruit- ful crop : when it is just about to gladden the reaper, it is beaten into the mire by hail, through another set of at- mospheric causes. Everywhere poisons are set against food, evil against good, death against life. Are there not two

42 ■ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

antagonist wills in Nature? Now it is a poor reply, es- pecially to the mind aroused by the vast and solemn question of the origin of evil, or to the heart wrung by irresistible calam- ity, to say with Paley, that we see similarity of contrivance in all natnre. Two hostile kings may wage internecine war, by precisely the same means and appliances. The true answer is, that, question nature as we may, through all her kingdoms, animal, inorganic, celestial, from the minutest disclosures of the microscope, up to the grandest revelations of the telescope, second causes are all inter-dependent ; and the designs convergent so far as comprehended, so that each effect depends, more or less directly, on all the others. Thus, in the first instance : The genial showers and suns gave, and the hail destroyed, the grain. But look deeper : They are all parts of one and the same meteorologic system. The same cause exhaled the vapour which made the genial rain and the ruthless hail. Nay, more ; the pneumatic currents which precipitated the hail, were constituent parts of a system which, at the same moment, were doing somewhere a work of blessing. Nature is one machine, moved by one mind. Should you see a great mill, at one place delivering its meal to the suffering poor, and at another crushing a sportive child between its iron wheels : it would be hasty to say, "Surely, these must be deeds of opposite agents." For, on searching, you find that there is but one water-wheel, and not a single smaller part which does not inos- culate, nearly or remotely, with that. This instance suggests also, that dualism is an inapplicable hypothesis. Is Ormusd stronger than Ahriman ? Then he will be victor. Are both equal in power? Then the one would not allow the other to work with his machinery ; and the true result, instead of being a mixture of cross-effects, would be a sort of "dead lock" of the wheels of nature.

We only know substance by its properties ; but our reason intuitively compels us to refer the properties 3. oc a .pin . known to a sJtbjecUim, a substratum of true

being, or substantia. We thus know, first, spiritual substance, as that which is conscious, thinks, feels, and wills ; and then material substance, as that which is unconscious.thoughtless, lifeless, inert. To all the latter we are compelled to give some of the attributes of extension; to the former it is imposible to ascribe any of them. Now, therefore, if this first Cause is to be referred to any class of substance known to us, itmustbe to one of these two. Should it be conceived that there is a third class, unknown 'to us, to which the first Cause may possibly belong, it would follow, sup- posing we had been compelled to refer the first Cause to the class of spirits, (as we shall see anon that we must,) that to this third class must also belong all creature spirits as species to a genus. For we know the attributes, those of thought and will, common between God and them; it would be the differefitia, v/hich would

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 43

be unknown. Is the first Cause, then, to be referred to the class, spirits ? Yes; because we find it possessed, in the highest possible degree, of every one of the attributes by which we recognize spirit. It thinks ; as we know by two signs. It produced us, who think; and there cannot be more in the effect than was in the cause. It has filled the universe with contrivances, the re- sults of thought. It chooses; for this selection of contrivances implies choice. And again, whence do creatures derive the power of choice, if n6t from it? It is the first Cause of life ; but this is obviously an attribute of spirit, because we find full life nowhere, except we see signs of spirit along with it. The first Cause is the source of force and of motion. But matter shows us, in no form, any power to originate motion. Inertia is its normal condition. We shall find God's power and presence penetrating and inhabiting all material bodies; but matter has a displacing power, as to all other matter. That which is impene- trable obviously is not ubiquitous.

But may not God be like us, matter and spirit in one person? I answer, No. Because this would be to be organized; but or- ganization can neither be eternal, nor immutable. Again, if He is material, why is it that He is never cognizable to any sense? We know that He is all about us always, yet never visible, audible, nor palpable. And last, He would no longer be penetrable to all other matter, nor ubiquitous.

Divines are accustomed to assert of the divine substance an absolute simplicity. If by this it is meant

subsSSce!^ "^ ^°'^'' ^^^^ ^^ ^s uncompounded, that His sub- stance is ineffably homogeneous, that it does not exist by assemblage of atoms, and is not discerptible, it is true. For all this is clear from His true spirituality and eternity. We must conceive of spiritual substance as existing thus; because all the acts, states, and conscious- nesses of spirits, demand a simple, uncompounded substance. The same view is probably drawn from His eternity and inde- pendence. For the only sort of construction or creation,, of which we see anything in our experience, is that made by some aggregation of parts, or composition of substance; and the only kind of death we know is by disintegration. Hence, that which has neither beginning nor end is uncompounded.

But that God is more simple than finite spirits in this, that in Him substance and attribute are one and the same, as they are not in them, I know nothing. The argument is, that as God is immutably what He is, without succession. His essence does not like ours pass from mode to mode of being, and from act to act, but is always all modes, and exerting all acts; hence His modes and His acts are Himself. God's thought is God. He is not active, but activity. I reply, that if this means more than is true of a man's soul, viz; that its thought is no entity, save the soul thinking; that its thought, as abstracted

,44 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

from the soul that thinks it, is only an abstraction and not a thing; it is undoubtedly false. For then we should have reached the pantheistic notion, that God has no other being than the in- finite series of His own consciousnesses and acts. Nor would v/e be far off from the other result of this fell theory; that all that is, is God. For he who has identified God's acts thus with His being, will next identifiy the effects thereof, the existence of the creatures therewith.

Infinitude means the absolutely limitless character of God's essence. Immensity the absolutely limitless

4. God Immense. ,. rrr- Ui. tt-u- l. 1

being 01 His substance. His being, as eternal,

is in no sense circumscribed by time ; as immense, in no wise cir- cumscribed by space. But let us not conceive of this as a repletion of infinite space by diffusion of particles : like, e. g., an elastic gas released in vacuo. The scholdLStic forjuula was, " The whole sub- stance, in its whole essence, is simultaneously present in every point of infinite space, yet without multiplication of itself This IS unintelligble ; (but so is His immensity :) it may assist to ex- clude the idea of material extension. God's omnipresence is His similar presence in all the space of the universe.

Now, to me, it is no proof of His immensity to say, the ne- cessity of His nature must operate everywhere, because absolute from all limitation. The inference does not hold. Nor to say that our minds impel us to ascribe all perfection to God; whereas exclusion from any space would be a limitation; for this is not conclusive of existences without us. Nor to say, that God must be everywhere, because His action and knowledge are every- where, and these are but His essence acting and knowing. Were the latter true, it would only prove God's omniprcsoice. But so far as reason apprehends His immensity, it seems to my mind to be a deduction from His omnipresence. The latter we deduce from His simultaneous action and knowledge, every- where and perpetually, throughout His universe. Now, let us not say that God is nothing else than His acts. Let us not rely on the dogma of the mediaeval physicks: "That substance cannot act save where it is present." But God, being the first Cause, is the source of all force. He is also pure spirit. Now we may admit that the sun (by its attraction of gravitation) may act upon parts of the solar system removed from it by many millions of miles ; and that, without resorting to the hypothesis of an elastic ether by which to propagate its impulse. It may be a.sked: if the sun's action throughout the solar system fails to prove His presence throughout it, how does God's universal ac- tion prove His omnipresence? The answer is in the facts above stated. There is no force originally inherent in matter. The power which is deposited in it, must come from the first Cause, and must work under His perpetual superintend- ence. His, not theirs, is the recollection, intelligence, and purpose which guide. Now, as we are conscious that our Intel-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 45;

ligence only acts where it is present, and where it perceives, this view of Providence necessarily impels us to impute omnipres- ence to this universal cause. For the power of the cause must be where the effect is.

But now, having traced His being up to the extent of the universe, which is to us practically immense, why limit it there? Can the mind avoid the inference that it extends farther? If we stood on the boundary of the universe, and some angel should teli us that this was " the edge of the divine substance," would it not strike us as contradictory? Such a Spirit, already seen to be omnipresent, has no bounding out- line. Again, we see God doing and regulating so many things over so vast an area, and with such absolute sovereignty, that we must believe His resources and power are absolute within the universe. But it is practically boundless to us. To succeed- always inside of it, God must command such a multitude of re- lations, that we are practically impelled to the conclusion, that there are no relations, and nothing to be related, outside His universe. But if His power is exclusive of all other, in all in- finite space, we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that His sub- stance is in all space.

By passing from one to another of God's attributes, and discovering their boundless character, we shall at last establish the infinitude of His essence or nature. It is an induction from the several parts.

5. By God's Immutability we mean that He is incapable of change. As to His attributes. His nature, his purposes, He remains the same from eternity to eternity. Creation and other acts of God in time, imply no change in Him ; for the purpose to do these acts at that given time was always in Him, just as when He effected them. This attribute follows from His necessary existence ; which is such that He cannot be any other than just what He is. It follows from his self-existence and independence; there being none to change Him. It follows from His simplicity : for how can change take place, when there is no composition to be changed? It follows from His perfec- tion; for being infinite, He cannot change for the better; and will not change for the worse. Scarcely any attribute is more clearly manifested to the reason than God's immutability.

SYLLABUS

1. Can Reason infer God's Omnipotence ? How? Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 21, Dr. S. Clarke, Prop. loth. Dick, Lect. 23. Charnock, Discourse x.

2. His Omniscience? How? Turrettin, Qu. 12. Dr. S. Clarke, Prop. 8 and ir. •Dick, Lect. 21, 22. Charnock, Discourse 8, § 2.

3. His Rigliteousness ? How? Turrettin, Qu. 19. Dr. S. Clarke, Prop. 12th. Dick, Lect. 25. Chalmers' Nat. Theology, bk iii, ch. 2. Hodge's Theology, pt. i, ch. 5, § 12.

4. His Goodness ? How ? Turrettin, Qu. 20. Dr. S. Clarke, as above. Leib- nitz, Theodicee Abregee. Chalmers' Nat. Theolog>-, bk. iv, ch. 2. Hodge, pt. i, ch, V, ^13. Charnock, Discourse 12.

5. Does Reason show that man bears Moral Relations to God ? What are they ? And what the Natural Duties deduced ?

Butler's Analogy, pt. i, ch. 2 to 5. Howe's Living Temple, pt. i, ch. 6th. Dr. S. Clarke's Discourse. Vol. ii. Prop, i to 4. Turrettin, qu. 22.

"\^7'HEN we enquire after God's power we mean here, not

his potestas, or iqooa'ca, authority, but His potcntia

or ouvauf;. When we say : He can' do all

God all Powerful. .1-1 l. A, i. -lj cc

things, we do not mean that He can suner, or be changed, or be hurt ; for the passive capacity of these things is not power, but weakness or defect. We ascribe to God no passive power. When we say that God's power is omnipotence, we mean that its object is only the possible, not the absolutely impossible. Here, however, we must again define, that by the absolutely impossible, we do not mean the physically impossible. For we see God do many things above nature, [^'j^.'C ;] that is above what material, or human, or angelic nature can effect. But v/e mean the do- ing of that which implies an inevitable contradiction. Some, e. g. Lutherans of the older school, say it is a derogation from God's omnipotence, to limit it by the inevitable self-contradic- tion : [that He is able to confer actual ubiquity on Christ's ma- terial body.] But we object : Popularly, God's omnipotence may be defined as His ability to do all things. Now of two incompat- ibles, both cannot become entities together ; for, by the terms of the case, the entity of the one destroys that of the other. But it they are not, and cannot be both things, the power of doing all things does not embrace the doing of incompatibles. But 2nd., more conclusively ; if even omnipotence could effect both of two contradictories, then the self-contradictory would become the true; which is impossible for man to believe. Hence, 3d., the assertion would infringe the foundation principle of all truth ; that a thing cannot be thus, and not thus, in the same sense, and at the same time.

We may add, 4th, that power is that which produces an

effect ; and every effect is a change. Hence the absolutely

changeless is not subject to power; be that power finite or

infinite. Here is an application of my remark, which no reflcc-

46

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 4/

ting person will dispute : The event which has actually- happened at some past time, is, as such, irrevocable. Even omnipotence has no relevancy towards recalling it. So, when a given effect is in place, the contradictory effect is as absolutely precluded from the same time and place. There is no room for change ; and therefore, no room for power.

But between these limits, we beheve God is omnipotent : That is, His power is absolute as to all being. In proof, note : He obviously has great power ; He has enough to produce all the effects in. the universe. Cause implies power : He is the universal first Cause. 2d. His power is at least equal to the aggregate of all the forces in the universe, of every kind ; because all sprang from Him at first. A mechanic constructs a machine far stronger than himself; it is because he borrows the forces of nature. There was no source whence God could borrow. He must needs produce all those forces of nature Himself; and He sustains them. 3d. God is one, and all the rest is produced by Him; so, since all the forces that exist, except His own, depend on Him, they cannot limit His force. Hence, it is absolutely un- limited, save by its own nature. And now, the exhibition of it already made in creation is so vast and varied, embracing (prob- ably) the very existence of matter, and certainly its whole or- ganization, the very existence of finite spirits, and all their at- tributes, and the government of the whole, that this power is practically to us immense. 4th. We have found God immutable. Whatever He once did, He can do again. He is as able to go on making universes such as this indefinitely, as to make this . 5th. He does not exist by sucession; and hence He is able to make two or more at once, as well as successively. It is hard to conceive how power can be more infinite than this.

Once more, God's power must be conceived of as pri- marily immediate ; i. e. His simple volition diatr^'^ Power Imme- -^ j,.g effectuation ; and no means interpose between the will and the effect. Our wills operate on the whole external world through our members ; and they, often, through implements, still more external. But God has no members ; so that we must conceive of His will as producing its effects on the objects thereof as immediately as our wills do on our bodily members. More- over the first exertion of God's power must have been immediate ; for at first nothing existed to be means. God's immutability assures us that the power of so acting is not lost to Him, The attribution of such immediate power to God does not deny that He also acts through "second causes."

None who believe in God have ever denied to Him know-

2. Wisdom Distin- ledge and wisdom. Wisdom isthe employ-

guished from Knowl- ment of things known. With judicious reference

•edge. to proper ends. Now God is Spirit : but to

48 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

think, to know, to choose are the very powers of spirits. The universe is full of beautiful contrivances. These exhibit knowl- edge, wisdom, and choice, coextensive with the aggregate of the whole.

But I had best pause and explain the usual distinctions made in God's knowledge. His scic?itia visi- God's Knowledge of ■ ^^ ^-^^.^^ j^ ^Lis knowledge of whatever two K.inds. . "^

has existence before His view; that is, of

all that is, has been, or is decreed to be. His scieutia iiitclli- gentiae, or simplex (uncompounded with any volition) is His in- finite conception of all the possible, which He does not purpose to effectuate. Others add a scientia media, which they suppose to be His knowledge of contingent effects including chiefly the future free and responsible acts of free agents. They call it me- diate, because they suppose God foreknows these acts only in- ferentially, by means of His knowledge of their characters and circumstances. But Calvinists regard all this as God's scientia znsionis. Let us see whether, in all these directions, God's knowledge is not without limit.

First, I begin from the simple fact that He is spiritual and

^;«;/?/(3/^^// First Cause. All being save- His

^^Proved from God's ^^^^ j^ ^j^^ offspring of His will. Grant a God,

and the doctrine of a providence is almost self-evident to the reason. This refers not only phenomena of specific creation, but all phenomena, to God's will. If any thing or event has actuality, it is because He has willed it. But now, can volition be conceived, in a rational spirit, except as condi- tioned on cognition « 7;;zt7n to itself? Hence, 1st, a knowledge is implied in God, a priori to and coextensive with His whole purpose. But because this purpose (that of universal almighty First Cause) includes the whole that has been, is, and shall be ; and since volition does not obscure, but fix the cognition which is the object thereof, God has a ^r.'V;///^? visionis, embracing all the actual. 2nd, Will implies selection: there must be more in the a priori cognition than is in the volition. Hence God's sciejitia simplex or knowledge of the possible, is wider than his scientia visionis. This view will be found to have settled the question between us and Arminians, whether God purposes the acts of free agents because He has foreseen their certain futurition, or whether their futurition is certain because He has purposed them. Look and see.

But more popularly; all God's works reveal marks of His

knowledge, thought and wisdom. But these domTe:;fn^HSwots: works are SO vast, SO varied, SO full of contri-

vance, they disclose to us a knowledge prac- tically boundless. His infinite power implies omniscience, for "knowledge is power." Certain success implies full knowledge of means and effects. We saw God is omnipresent; but He is spirit. Hence He knows all that is present to Him; for it is the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 49

nature of spirit to know. A parallel argument arises from God's providence; (which reason unavoidably infers.) The ends which are subserved show as much knowledge and wisdom as the structure of the beings used — so that we see evidence of com- plete knowledge of all second causes, including reasonable agents and their acts. For so intimate is the connection of cause with cause, that perfect knowledge of the whole alone can certify re- sults from any. Here also we learn, God's knowledge of past and future is as perfect as of present things; for the completion of far-reaching plans, -surely evolved from their remote causes, implies the retention by God of all the past, and the clear anti- cipation of all the future. Nay, what ground of certain futuri- tion is there, save that God purposes it? His omnipotence here shows that He has a complete foreknowledge; because that which is to be is no other than what He purposes. God's im- mutability proves also His perfect knowledge of past, present, and future. Did He discover new things, these might become bases for new purposes, or occasions of new volitions, and God would no longer be the same in will. God's omniscience is im- plied also in all His moral attributes; for if He does not perform His acts understandingly, He is not praiseworthy in them. Last, our consciences reveal an intuition of God's infinite knowledg'e; for our fears recognize Him as seeing our most secret, as well as our public acts. His unfading knowledge of the past is espe- cially pointed out by conscience ; for whenever she remembers, she takes it for granted that God does. Thus we find God's scientiavisionis is a perfect knowledge, past, present, and future, of all beings and all their actions, including those of moral agents.

How do we infer His knowledge of the possible? A reason- able being must first conceive, in order to Inferfed.'"''^ ^"""^^"'^ produce. He cannot make, save as He first has his own idea, to make by. God then, before He began to make the universe, must have had in His mind a conception, in all its details, of whatever He was to effect- uate. Let me, in passing, call your attention to a difference between the human and the divine imagination, which is sug- gested here. You are all familiar with the assertion of the psychologists, that our imaginations cauiioc create elements of conception, but only new combinations. The original elements, which this faculty reconstructs into new images, must first be given to the mind from without, through sense-perception. Thus, in human conception, the thing must be before the thought; but in God's, the thought must have been before the thing, for the obvious reason, that the thing could only come into existence by virtue of God's conception a priori to any objective percep- tion. It is thus demonstrable, that the divine mind has this power, which is impossible to the human imagination. Such is the difference between the independent, infinite, and the depen- *4

50 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

dent, finite spirit. But even in this contrast, we see that the imagination is one of man's noblest faculties, and most god- like. But, to return: All that is now in esse, must have been thought by God, while only in posse, and before it existed. How long before ? As God changes not, it must have been from eter- nity. There then was a knowledge of the possible. But was that which is now actual, the only possible before God's thought? Sovereignty implies selection ; and this, two or more things to chose among. And unless God had before Him the ideas of all possible universes, He may not have chosen the one which, had He known more, would have pleased Hira best; His power was limited. In conclusion, the infaiibility of all God's knowledge is implied in His power. Ordinarily, he chooses to work only through regular second causes. But causes and ef- fects are so linked that any uncertainty in one jeopardizes all the subsequent. But we see that God is possessed of some way of effectuating all His will. Therefore He infahibly knows all causes ; but each effect is in turn a cause.

We must also believe that God knows all things intuitively and not deductively. A deduction is a P.Sve.^^""''^'''''^' ""^^ discovery. To discover something implies previous imperfection of knowledge. God's knowledge, moreover, is not successive as ours is, but simulta- neous. Inference implies succession ; for conclusion comes af- ter premise.

God's righteousness, as discoverable by reason, means, generally, His rectitude, and not His distrib-

•'■ ^'^'^ ' " '^' utive justice. Is He a moral being? Is His

will regulated by right? Reason answers, yes; by justice, by faithfulness, by goodness, by holiness.

First, because this character is manifest in the order of nature

Rectitude of God ^hich He has established. This argument proven by Bishop But- Cannot be better stated than in the method ^^■■- of Bishop Butler, i. God is Governor over

man; as appears from the fact that in a multitude of cases. He rewards our conduct with pleasures and pains. For the order of Nature, whether maintained by God's present providence, or impressed on it at first only, is God's do- ing; its rewards are His rewarding. 2. The character of proper rewards, and especially punishments, appears clearly in these traits. They follow acts, though pleasant in the doing. They sometimes tarry long, and at last fall violently. After men have gone certain lengths, repentance and reform are vain, &c. 3. The reward and penalties of society go to confirm the conclu- sion, because they are of God's ordaining. Second ; This God's rule is moral ; because the conduct which earns well-being is virtuous ; and ill-being, sinful. True remedial processes, such as repentance, reform, have their peculiar pains ; but these are chargeable rather to the sin, than the remedy. True again ; the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5 1

wicked sometimes prosper; but natural reason cannot but re- gard this as an exception, which future awards will right. Fur- ther: Society (which is God's ordinance,) usually rewards virtue and punishes vice. Love of approbation is instinctive ; but God thus teaches men most generally to approve the right. And last : How clear the course of Nature makes God's approval of the right appear, is seen in this ; that all virtuous societies tend to self-perpetuation in the long run, and all vicious ones to self- extinction. Third: Life is full of instances of probation, as seed-time for harvest,- youth for old age, which indicates that man is placed under a moral probation here.

But a most powerful argument for God's rectitude is that

presented by the existence of conscience in

^°f ^ ^r ^''''•'^ ^''" man. Its teachings are universal. Do some

gued from Conscience. . . . . ° , . . .

deny its mtuitive authority, asserting it to be

only a result of habit or policy ? It is found to be a universal result ; and this proves that God has laid in us some intentional foundation for the result. Now, whatever, the differences of moral opinion, the peculiar trait of conscience is that it always enjoins that which seems to the person right. It may be disre- garded ; but the man must think, if he thinks at all, that in do- ing so, he has done wrong. The act it condemns may give pleas- <ure ; but the wickedness of the act, if felt at all, can only give pain. Conscience is the imperative faculty. Now if God had •not conceived the moral distinction, He could not have im- printed it on us. But is His will governed by it? Does he not, from eternity, know extension as an object of thought, an attri- bute of matter ; and sin, as a quality of the rebel creature ? Yet He Himself is neither extended, nor evil. The reply is : since God has, from eternit}-, had the idea of moral distinc- tion, whence was it ii derived, save from His own perfection? In what being illustrated, if not in Himself? But more, con- science is God's imperative in the human soul. This is its pe- culiarity among rational judgments. But since God implanted conscience, its imperative is the direct expression of His will, that man shall act righteously. But when we say, that every known expression of a being's will is for the right, this is vir- tually to say that he wills always righteously. The King's char- acter is disclosed in the character of his edicts.

God's truth and faithfulness are evinced by the same argu- ments ; and by these, in addition. The structure of our senses and intelligence, and the adaptation of external nature thereto, are His handiwork. Now, when our senses and understanding are legitimately used, their informations are always found, so far as we have opportunity to test them, correspondent to reality. One sense affirms the correctness of another. Senses confirm reasonings, and vice versa. Last, unless we can po tu- late truth in God, there is no truth anywhere. For our laws of perception and thought being His imprint, if His truth cannot be

52 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

relied on, their truth cannot, and universal skepticism is the result.

" The world is full of the goodness of the Lord." I only

^ ,, , aim to classify the evidences that God is be-

4. God s Benevolence. ^ , aj,»-„ 11 • /— j-

nevolent. And 1st, generally: smce Lrod is

the original Cause of all things, all the happiness amidst His works is of His doing ; and therefore proves His benevolence. But more definitely ; the natures of all orders of sentient beings, if not violated, are constructed, in the main, to secure their appro- priate well-being. Instance the insect, the fish, the bird, the ox, the man. 3d. Many things occur in the special providence of God which show Him benevolent ; such as providing remedial medicines, &c., for pain, and special interpositions in danger. 4th. God might, compatibly with justice, have satisfied Himself with so adapting external nature to man's senses and mind as to make it minister to his being and intelligence, and thus secure the true end of his existence, without, in so doing, making it pleasant to his senses. Our food and drink might have nour- ished us, our senses of sight and hearing might have informed us, without making food sweet, light beautiful, and sounds me- lodious to us. And yet appetite might have impelled us to use our senses and take our food. Such, in a word, is God's good- ness, that He turns aside to strew incidental enjoyment. The more unessential these are to His main end, the stronger the argument. 5th. God has made all the beneficent emotions,love sympathy, benevolence, forgiveness, delightful in their exercise ; and all the malevolent ones, as resentment, envy, revenge, pain- ful to their subjects ; thus teaching us that He would have us propagate happiness and diminish pain. Last : Conscience, which is God's imperative, enjoins benevolence on us as one duty,when- ever compatible with others. Benevolence is therefore God's will ; and doubtless. He who wills us to be so, is benevolent Himself.

No Pagan theist ever has doubted God's providence. You may refer me to the noted case of the Epicureans; they were practical atheists. Their notion that it was derogatory to the blessedness and majesty of the gods to be wearied with terres- tial affairs, betrays in one word a false conception of the divine perfections. Fatigue, confusion, worry, are the result of weak- ness and limitation. To infinite knowledge and power the full- est activities are infinitely easy, and so, pleasurable. Common sense argues from the perfection of God, that He does uphold and direct all things by His Providence. His wisdom and power enable Him to it. His goodness and justice certainly impel Him to it; for it would be neither benevolent nor just, having brought sentient beings into existence, to neglect their welfare, rights and guilt. God's wisdom will certainly prosecute those suitable ends for which He made the universe, by superintend- ing it. To have made it without an object; or, having one, to overlook that object wholly after the world was already made.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 53

would neither of them argue a wise being. The manifest de- pendence of the creature confirms the argument.

But there stands out the great fact of the existence of much

suffering in the universe of God; and reason Hoi" expSned' "^"^ ^^ks : _" If God is almighty, all-wise, sovereign,

why, if benevolent, did He admit any suffer- ing in His world? Has He not chosen it because He is pleased with \tpet se ? It is no answer to say : God makes the suf- fering the means of good, and so chooses it,not for its own sake,but for its results. If He is omnipotent and all-wise, He could have pro- duced the same quantum of good by other means, leaving out the suffering. Is it replied : No, that the virtues of sympathy, forgiveness, patience, submission, could have had no existence unless suffering existed ? I reply that then their absence would have been no blemish or lack in the creature's character. It is only because there is suffering, that sympathy therewith is valuable. Suppose it be said again : " All physical evil is the just penalty of moral evil," and so necessitated by God's jus- tice ? The great difficulty is only pushed one step farther back. For, while it is true, sin being admitted, punishment ought to follow, the question returns : Why did the Almighty permit sin, w unless He be defective in holiness as in benevolence ? It is no tlie- ^^zVf^ to say that God cannot always exclude sin, without infring- ing free-agency ; for I prove, despite all Pelagians, from Celes- \ tius downwards, that God can do it, by His pledge to render elect angels and men indefectible for ever. Does God then choose sin ? This is the mighty question, where a theodicee has been so often attempted in vain. The most plausible theory is that of the optimist ; that God saw this actual universe, though involv- ing evil, is on the whole the most beneficent universe, which was possible in the nature of things. For they argue, in sup- *port of that proposition : God being infinitely good and wise, cannot will to bring out of posse into esse^ a universe which is on the whole, less beneficent than any possible universe. The obvious objections to this Beltisdc scheme are two. It assumes without warrant, that the greatest natural good of creation is God's highest end in creating and governing the universe. We shall see, later in this course, how this assumption discloses itself as a grave error; and in the hands of the followers of Leibnitz and the optimists, vitiates their whole theory of morals and their doctrine of atonement. The other objection is, that it limits the power o.f God. Being infinite. He could have made a universe including a quantum of happiness equal to that in our universe, and exclusive of our evils.

But there is a more legitimate and defensible hypothesis. It

is not competent to us to say that the benefi- _ Optimist Theory Mod- ^^^^^ ^^ j.^^^^^ j^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^t tO be, God's

chief ultimate end in creation and provi- dence. It is one of His worthy ends ; this is all we should as-

54 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sert. But may we not assume that doubtless there is a set of ends, (no man may presume to say what all the parts of that collective end are,) which God eternally sees to be the proper- est ends of His creation and providence ? I think we safely may. Doubtless those ends are just such as they ought to be, with reference to all God's perfections ; and the proper infer- ence from those perfections is, that He is producing just such a universe, in its structure and management, as will, on the whole, most perfectly subserve that set of ends. In this sense, and no other, 1 am an optimist. But now, let us make this all-important remark : When the question is raised, whether a God of infinite power can be benevolent in permitting natural, and holy in per- mitting moral evil, in His universe, the burden of proving the negative rests on the doubter. We who hold the affirmative are entitled to the presumption, because the contrivances of creation and providence are beneficent so far as we comprehend them. Even the ph)-sical and moral evils in the universe are ob- viously so overruled, as to bring good out of evil. (Here is the proper value in the argument, of the instances urged by the op- timist: that suffering makes occasion for fortitude and sympathy, &c,, &c.; and that even man's apostacy made way for the glories of Redemption.) The conclusion from all these beautiful in- stances is, that so far as finite minds can follow them, even the evils tend towards the good. Hence, the presumptive proba- bility is in favor of a solution of the mystery', consistent with the infinite perfections of God. To sustain that presumption against the impugner, we have only to make the hypothesis, that ( for reasons we cannot see, God saw it was not possible to sepa- C rate the existing evils from that system which, as a whole, satis- fied His own properest ends. Now let the skeptic disprove that hypothesis ! To do so, he must have omniscience. Do you say, I cannot demonbtrate it ? Very true; for neither am I omniscient • But I have proved that the reasonable presumption is in favor of the hypothesis ; that it may be true, although we cannot ex- plain how it comes to be true.

If the existence and moral perfections of God be admitted,

no one will dispute that man bears moral re- God. ^^''"'' ^"^'^' *° latio"s to Him. This appears very simply

from the fact that man is a moral being related to God as his Maker and providential Ruler. It is also inferri- ble from the marks of a probation, and a moral rule appearing in the course of nature. And it is emphatically pronounced by the native supremacy of conscience, commanding us to obey. Rational Deists as well as Natural Theologians have attempted to deduce the duties man owes his Creator. They are usually (on grounds sufficiently obvious) summed up as: i. Love, with reverence and gratitude; 2. Obedience; 3. Penitence; 4. Wor- ship. The rule of obedience, is, of course, in natural religion, the law of nature in the conscience.

SYLLABUS

1. What use is attempted, of the physical doctrine of the "Correlation of Forces," by recent Materialists?

2. State and refute the theory which seeks to identify animal hfe with vegetable, in protoplasm.

3. Show the connection between Materialism and Atheism ; and the moral results of the latter. See, "

Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol. i, pp. 246 to 299. Turrettin Locus v. Qu. 14th. Lay Sennons of Dr. Th. Huxley. Dr. Stirling on " Physical Basis of Life." Dr. Thomas Brown, Lectures, 96th.

TjR. Thomas Brown, in his Lectures, very properly remarks, that the question of man's immortahty is involved with that

of the immateriality of his soul. There is, in- fnv^WesTmmoS^^ deed, a small class of materialists, who might

hold man's immortality, without contradicting themselves. It is that which, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that the soul, while distinct from the body, and an independent, personal substance and monad, is some refined species of matter. They are willing to recognize only one kind of substance. But modern materialists usually deny that there is any such separate substance as soul. They regard its functions, whether of intelli- gence, feeling, or volition, as all results of some organization of matter. They consequently believe, that when dissolution separ- ates the body into its elements, what men call the soul is as ab- solutely obliterated, as is the colour or fragrance or form of a rose, when its substance has mouldered into dust. We utterly deny both forms ot materialism. My purpose at this time is to consider a class of arguments, now again current, which may be called the physical arguments, upon the nature of life and spirit. The psychological arguments, if I may so term them, will be presented afterwards.

We have seen how evolutionists seek to identifiy human,

with animal life; by supposing man to have Does Correlation of been slowly evolved even from the lowest

b orces prove Soul a^ r • , 1 . -rr .-i r

Force only? torm oi animated creatures. If the successor

this be granted, then only one more step will remain. This will be to identify animal, with vegetable life. Thus, all evidence of any separate substance of life, {aninia) will be removed. This last step, Dr. Huxley, for instance, undertakes to supply, in his Physical Basis of Life, Before we proceed to state this theory, however, the way must be prepared, by exposing the use attempted to be made of the modern physi- cal doctrine of the "correlation of forces."

Sound reflection would seem to indicate, that when a given physical force appears, it does not rise ex niliilo, and does not suffer annihilation when it seems to end. It is transmuted into

55

56 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

some other form of force. Thus: in the boiler of a steam-en- gine, so many degrees of caloric absorbed into a given v^olume of water, evolve so many pounds' weight of lifting force. In like manner, it is now supposed that light, heat, electricity, chemical affinity, are all correlated. If we knew enough of physics, it is supposed we should find, that one of these forces might always be measured in terms of the others. When one of them s eems to disappear, it is because it is transmuted into some other. The doctrine, in this sense, is held by many Christian physicists : and in this form, Theology has nothing to do with it either for denial or affirmation. But recent materialists catch at it for an anti-theological use. They would have us infer from it, that all physical causes are identical. Then, say they, this analogy should lead us to conclude the same of what have hitherto been called vital causes; that in short, there is but one cause in Nature, and that is of the nature of force ; while all effects are accord- ingly of the nature of material motion. Thus, the converging lines of science, say they, point to a central Force, as the only God, which the rational man will accept. All the universe is the one substance (if it be a substance) matter. And all effects are forms of material motion, molecular or in masses.

It is obvious that this is at best, but a vague speculation.

I deny that its basis in physical science has

to^^rcoidatS''''^'^ been solidly settled, even could we grant that

the use made of that basis was not utterly

licentious. Has the force of gravity been yet correlated with

heat, light and electricity? It seems fatal to such an idea, that

a mass still has the same gravity, while its calorific and electrical

conditions are most violently changed ! It may well be doubted,

whether the force of mechanical adhesion between the atoms of

homogeneous solids, is identical with chemical affinity, or with

electricity, or heat.

The latter diminishes the atomic adhesion of solid iron, or gold, reducing it to a liquid? But at the same time it increases the cohesion of clay.

Again: That this hypothesis in its extreme form, is by no means proved, appears from the ease with which a counter-hypo- thesis may be advanced, which physicists are not able absolutely to exclude. Let it be supposed that material forces are perma- nent properties of the different kinds of matter in which they severally inhere. Let it be supposed that these forces are truly distinct from each other, and intrinsically ever present, in the sense of being always ready to act. Then, all that is needed to cause the action of a Sfiven force, is to release it from the coun- ter-action of some other force; which has hitherto counterpoised it, thus producing for the time, a non-action which appeared to be rest. Then, every physical effect would be the result of a concurrence of two or more forces; and each force would for- ever maintain intrinsically, its distinct integrity. This h}'poth-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 57

esis has very plausible supports in a number of physical facts; and it is in strict accordance with the metaphysics of causation. But, not to intrude into physics: we might grant the identity of these forces of dead matter, and yet deny that they are correlat- ed to vitality. No one has ever succeeded in transmuting any of them into vital causation, nor in measuring vitality in the terms of any of these forces. To say that all thought and voli- tion are attended by muscular contractions, and oscillations of the nerve-matter of the brain, is very far from showing that they constitute them. Let it be proved that the nerve-force in a hu- man muscle is electrical. Let it be observed that surprise, shame, fear, or muscular exertion, stimulate the animal heat, and that the caloric in a blush upon the cheek of youth is as literally caloric as that in the boiler of a steam-engine. To what does all this come? Who or w^hat uses these modifications of organs? The living spirit. This muscular action is quiescent at one time, active at another, at the bidding of spirit. The eyes and ears may carry to that spirit the objective sensations which are the occasions of emotion; but the emotion is always from within. Let the state of the living spirit be changed : and the occasional cause has no more power to raise the glow of hot blood, -or to nerve the arm, than in a stone. As a Christian writer has well replied: the attempt to identify vital, or spiritual causation with material forces would be exploded by this one instance. Let opprobrious words be addressed to a plain Briton in the French language: and no pulse is quickened, no nerve becomes tense. Now translate the insult into English: at once his cheek burns, and his arm is nerved to strike. Why this? The French words were as audible as the English, they vibrated to the same degree upon the auditory nerves. But to the spirit of the Briton, there was no meaning. A mere idea has made all this difference. The cause is solely in a mental modification, of which the material phenomenon was merely occasion. Tyndal himself confesses that this argument of the materialists is naught : that though they had proved all they profess to prove, there is an unbridged chasm between force and life.

For, in the next place, physical force and vital causation are heterogeneous. The former, in all its geneous!^''''^^ Hetero- p^^ggg^ jg unintelligent, involuntary, measu- rable by weight and velocity, and quantity of matter affected, producing motion, mechanical or molecular, and tending to eqiiilibrhmi. All animal life has some species of spontaneity. Spirit, as a cause, has the unique attribute of free-agenc}% the opposite of inertia, self-active, directive. Mind and its modifications cannot be measured in any physical terms or quantities ; and hence they cannot be correlated. Volition controls or directs force ; is not transmuted into it. If we de- scend to the lowest forms of animal vitality, we still find a gulf between it and dead matter, which science never has passed

58 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

over. No man has ever educed life, without the use of a germ- inal vital cause. This vital cause, again, resists the material forces. When it departs, caloric and chemical affinities resume their sway over the matter of the body lately living, as over any similar matter; but as long as the vital cause is present, it is directly antagonistic to them.

Huxley, who himself admits that there is no genesis of life from dead matter, yet very inconsistently at- BaslsofLife? ^^'"^^^ tempts to find a physical basis of life, common to animals and plants, in a substance whose molecules are chemically organized, which he calls protoplasm. He asserts that this, however varied, always exhibits a three- fold unity, oi faculty, oi form and of substance, ist. The fac- ulties are alike in all; contractility, alimentation, and reproduc- tion. All vegetable things are sensitive plants, if we knew them ! and the difference of these functions in the lowest plant and highest animal, is only one of degree ! 2nd, Protoplasm is everywhere identical in molecular form. And, 3d. Its sub- stance is always oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. The fate, then, of all protoplasm is death : that is, dissolution into its four elements; and its origin is the chemical union of the same. Does the compound display properties very different from the elements ? So has water properties very unlike the mixture of two volumes of oxygen and hydrogen gas. Yet, the electric spark flashed through them awakens the chemical affinity, which makes water. So, a little speck of pre-existing protoplasm causes these dead elements to arrange themselves into new protoplasm. There is, then, no more cause to assume in the living organism, a new and mysterious cause, above that of chemical affinity, and to name it vitality ! than in the other case, an imaginary property of 'aquosity.' And, as a certain chemical aggregation of the four elements is protoplasm, the basis of all life ; so the higher vital functions, including those of mind, must be explained by the same force, acting in a more complicated way.

For the facts which explode this theory, we are, of course, . dependent on physiologists. The most ex-

cept'tlfeTen. perienced of them, then, declare that the most

rudimental vitalized organism which the mi- croscope discloses, is not Dr. Huxley's protoplasm, but a living tissue cell, with its vital power of nutrition and reproduction. That all protoplasm, or Ywm^ protein, is not alike in form, nor in constituent elements ; and so marked is this, that microscop- ists know the different sources of these varieties of protein, by their appearance. That different vitalities construct different forms of protein out of the same elements. That some forms are utterly incapable of being nourished by some other forms ; which should not be the case, were all protoplasm the same. That while vegetable vitality can assimilate dead matter, animal

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 59.

vitality can only assimilate matter which has been prepared for it it by vegetable (or animal) vitality. And, that all protojDlasm is not endowed with contractility ; so that the pretended basis for animal motion does not exist in it.

The seemingly plausible point in this chemical theory of life is the attempted parallel between the by'^cL".^al^XTy!' P/^duction of Water and of protoplasm. Asks Huxley : " Why postulate an imagin- ary cause, 'vitality,' in this case, rather than 'aquosity,' over and above chemical .affinity, in the other?" The answer is, that this analogy is false, both as to the causes and the effects, in the two cases. In the production of water from the two gases, the occasion is the electrical spark ; the real, efficient cause is the affinity of the oxygen for the hydrogen. In the reproduction of living tissue, the efficient cause is a portion of preexisting living tissue, present, of the same kind. The proof is, that if this be absent, all the chemical affinities and electri- cal currents in the world are vain. The elements of a living tissue are held together, not by chemical affinities, but by a cause heterogeneous thereto, yea, adverse ; the departure of which is the signal for those affinities to begin their action ; which action is to break up the tissue. As to the effects in the two cases : In the production of water, the electric spark is the occasion for releasing the action of an affinity, which pro- duces a compound substance. In the case of the living organ- ism, there is an effect additional to composition : This is life. Here, I repeat, is an effect wholly in excess of the other case, which affinity cannot imitate. Protoplasm dead, and subject to the decomposing action of affinities (as water is of the metals) is the true analogue of water.

But this theory has another defect, the fatal nature of which -- .^ . Huxley himself has pointed out: the defect

Has no Ventication. ^ ; , .^ . ^ ,, ,

01 actual verification. JNo man has ever

communicated life to dead, compounded matter. Let the ma- terialist make a living animal in his chemical laboratory; then only will his hypothesis begin to rise out of the region of mere dreams. There are, in fact, four spheres or worlds of creature existence, the inorganic, or mineral, the vegetable, the animal and the human, or spiritual. Notwithstanding analogies be- tween them (which are just what reason expects between the different works of the same divine Architect) they are separa- ted by inexorable bounds. No man has ever changed mineral matter into a vegetable structure, without the agency of a pre- existent living germ ; nor vegetable matter into animal, without •a similar animal germ ; nor animal into spiritual, save by the agency of the birth of a rational soul. The scientific, as much as the theological conclusion, is: That there is in vegetable structures, a distinct, permanent cause, additional to those which combine mineral bodies ; that there is another in the animal,.

sign.

60 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

distinct from the mineral and vegetable ; and still another in the spiritual, distinct from the other three. The inference is a posteriori, and bears the test of every canon of sound induction. This suggests our next point of reply. There is, in living tissue, a something more than the physical AH Life shows De- (3a.uses which organize it : Design. We have diverse and ingenious organs, wonderfully designed for their different essential functions. Now, design is a thought! Yea, more; intentional adaptation discloses a per- sonal volition. Suppose that molecular and chemical affinities could make "protoplasm," can they educe design, thought, wisdom, choice ? Dr. Stirling admirably illustrates this licen- tious assumption of Huxley, (referring still to Paley's illustration of a newly found watch): " Protoplasm breaks up into carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen ? True. The watch breaks up similarly into brass, steel, gold and glass. The loose materials of the watch [even its chemical materials, if you will] replace its weight quite as accurately as the constituents, carbon, &c., replace the weight of the ' protoplasm.' But neither these nor those replace the vanished idea, which was the important ele- ment. Mr. Huxley saw no break in the series of steps in molecular complication f but, though not molecular, it is diffi- cult to understand what more striking, what more absolute break could be desired, than the break into an idea. It is of that break alone that we think in the watch ; and it is of that break alone that we should think, in the protoplasm, which, far more cunningly, far more rationally, constructs a heart, or an eye, or an ear. That is the break of breaks ; and explain it as we may, we shall never explain it by molecules."

Here, then, is a fatal chasm in the materialistic scheme. It not only supposes, falsely, that chemical affinities, with cohe- sion, can account for living substance ; but that the force of this 'protoplasm,' unintelligent, blind, involuntary, has exerted thought, wisdom and rational choice in selecting ends and adapted means. Even if the powers claimed for 'protoplasm' were granted, still a Creator, to give us the first protoplasm with which to start, would be as essential as ever. For the scientific fact still remains, that only living structures reproduce living structures.

Last : See these words of Huxley, (" Lay Sermons " p. 38 ): " But I bid you beware that, in accepting these conclu- sions" (as to ' protaplasm ' ) "you are plac- ■isti?^*^"^^ Material- -^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^.j^^ ^^^^ ^^^.^„ ^^ ^ ladder which, in most people's estimation, is the reverse of Jacob's, and leads to the antipodes of heaven. It may seem a small thing to admit, that the dull, vital actions of ■di fungus or di fomminifer d^re the properties" (meaning chem- ical and molecular) " of their protoplasm, and are the direct results of the nature of the matter of which they are com-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6e

posed. But if, as I have endeavored to prove to you, their protoplasm is identical v/ith, and most readily converted into, that of any animal, I can discover no logical halting place between the admission that such is the case, and the concession that all vital action may, with equal propriety, be said to be the result of the molecular forces of the protoplasm which displays it. And if so, it must be true, in the same sense, and to the same extent, that the thoughts to which I am now giving utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, are expressions of molecular in that matter of life, which is the source of other vital phenomena."

This pretended reasoning I present to you as a specimen of the absurd and licentious methods by which the attempt is made to overthrow at once the almost universal convictions of rational men, and the declarations of God's word. The con- clusions I utterly deny, even if the premises were granted. If it were proved (which is not) that vegetable life was no more than the result of adhesion and chemical affinit}-, this would come wholly short of the identification of animal life with veg- etable. If rudimental animal life were identified w4th chem- ical action, this would be utterly short of proving that mental action is identical with the other two. The chasm between animal and spiritual action, is as impassable as ever. As we have seen, the unconscious, vegetable organism contains, in its adaptation to its end, a mark of thought about it, which can- not be overlooked. But now, the intelligent being has thought in it also ; making a double and an insuperable difficulty to the materiahst. For thought and rational choice cannot possibly be referred to a substance extended, inert, passive and invol- untary. These functions of spirit are heterogeneous with all other forces, not measured by them, and not capable of trans- mutation into them. But we are now upon the threshold of the psychological argument against materialism.

The tendency of Dr. Darwin's speculations is to obliterate the distinction between man and the brutes ; thus it virtually makes man also a beast. But Huxley would have us end by reducing both beast and man to the level of the clod. Why is it that any mind possessed even of the culture necessary for the construction of these theories, does not resent the unspeak- able degradation which they inflict upon mankind ? Men would not thus outrage their own natures, without an inter- ested motive. That motive probably is, to be emancipated from moral obligation to God, and to escape those immortal responsibilities which remorse foreshadows. It seems a fine thing to the sinful mind to have no omniscient Master, to be released from the stern restraints of law, to be obliged to no answer hereafter for conscious guilt. For if there is no spirit in man, there is no valid evidence to us that there is a Spirit anywhere in the universe. God and immortality are both

62 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

blotted out together. But let us see whether even the sinner has any motive of self-interest to say in his heart : " There is no God;" whether atheism is not at least as horrible as hell. The best hope of materialism is annihilation.. This is a

destiny terrible to man, even as he is, con- Anmliila"don^°^^ ^"' scious of guilt, and afraid of his own future.

Does the materialist plead that, if this fate ends all happiness, it is at least an effectual shield against all misery? I reply, that the destruction of man's being is a true -evil to him, just to the extent that he ever experienced or hoped any good from his own existence. How strong is the love of life? Just so real and so great is the evil of extinction. Second : but for guilt and fear, a future immortality would be hailed by any living man as an infinite boon. And of this, annihilation would rob us. How base and vile is that theory of existence, which compels a rational free-agent to embrace the hope of an infinite loss, solely as a refuge from his own folly and fault? The vastness of the robbery of self can be poorly cloaked by the miserable fact, that the soul has so played the fool and traitor to its own rights, that it has com- pelled itself to seek the infinite loss of annihilation, rather than an alternative still worse!

But materialism and atheism do not make you sure of

annihilation. A conscious identity continued able.^ ^^"^^ ^^^'" through so many stages and changes, may

continue in spite of death. Some material- ists have devoutly believed in immortality. But if man is immortal, and has no God, this itself is eternal despair. Nor can any materialistic theory expel from the soul those immor- tal realities, sin, guilt, accountalaility, remorse, misery: for they are more immediately testified by our intuitions, than any physical fact possibly can be, which men attempt to employ as a datum for this soulless philosophy. At least, when death •comes, that "most wise, mighty, and eloquent orator" dispels the vain clouds of materialism, and holds the sinner face to face with these realities, compelling him to know them as solid as his own conscious existence. But now, if his theory is true, there is no remedy for these miseries of the soul. There is no God omnipotent to cleanse and deliver. There is no Redeemer in whom dwell the divine wisdom, power, love and truth, for man's rescue. The blessed Bible, the only book which ever even professed to tell fallen man of an adequate salvation, is discredited. Providence and grace are banished out of the existence of helpless, sinful man. There is no object to whom we can address prayer in our extremity. In place of a personal God and father in Christ, the fountain and exemplar of all love and beneficence, to whom we can cry in prayer, on whom we may lean in our weakness aud anguish, who is able and willing to heal depravity .and wash away guilt, who is suited to be our

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 63

adequate portion through an eternal existence, we are left face to face with this infinite nature, material, impersonal, reason- less, heartless. There is no supreme, rational or righteous government ; and when the noblest sentiments of the soul are crushed by wrongs so intolerable, that their perpetual triumph is felt to be an alternative as hateful as death, there is not, nor shall there ever be, to all eternity, any appeal to compensating justice ! But our only master and ruler is an irresistible, blind machine, revolving forever by the law of a mechanical neces- sity ; and the corn between its upper and nether millstones, is this multitude of living, palpitating human hearts, instinct with their priceless hopes, and fears, and affections, and sensibilities, writhing and bleeding forever under the remorseless grind. The picture is as black as hell itself ! He who is " without God in the world " is " without hope." Atheism is despair.

Materialism and atheism will never win a permanent vic- tory over the human mind ; the most they livid" ^'^''"'' ^^°''" can do is to betray a multitude of unstable souls to their own perdition, by flattering them with future impunity in sin ; and to visit upon Christen- dom occasional spasms of anarchy and crime. With masses of men, the latter result will always compel these schemes to work their own speedy cure. For, on their basis, there can be no moral distinction, no right, no wrong, no rational, obligatory motive, no rational end save immediate, selfish and animal good, and no rational restraints on human wickedness. The consistent working of materialism would turn all men into beasts of prey, and earth into pandevioniiuit. The partial establishment of the doctrine immediately produces mischiefs so intolerable, that human society refuses to endure them. Besides this, the soul of man is incapable of persistent materi- alism and atheism, because of the inevitable action of those original, constitutive laws of thought and feeling, which qualify it as a rational spirit. These regulative laws of thought cannot be abolished by any conclusions which result from themselves, for the same reason that streams cannot change their own fountains. The sentiment of religion is omnipotent in the end. We may rest in assurance of its triumph, even without appeal- ing to the work of the Holy Ghost, whom Christianity promises as the omnipotent coadjutor of the truth. While irreligious men explore the facts of natural history for fancied proofs of a creation by evolution which omits a Creator, the heralds of Christ will continue to lay their hands upon the heart-strings of immortal men, and find there always the forces to overwhelm unbelief. Does the materialist say that the divine deals only with things spiritual ? But spiritual consciousnesses are more stable than all his material masses ; than his primitive granite. Centuries hence, (if man shall continue in his present state so long) when these current theories of unbelief shall have been

64 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

consigned to that liinhits, where Polytheism, the Ptolemaic as- tronomy, Alchemy and Judicial Astrology lie contemned, Christianity will hold on its beneficent way.

There is an argument ad hoinineju, by which this discussion might be closed with strict justice. If ma- eiij^of W^kfnd*^ ^''' terialism is true, then the pretended philoso- pher who teaches it is a beast ; and all we are beasts. Brute animals are not amenable to moral law ; and if they were, it is no murder to kill a beast. But beasts act very consistently upon certain instincts of self-interest. Even they learn something by experience. But this teaches us that the propagator of atheistic ideas is doing intolerable mischief; for just so far as they have prevailed, they have let loose a flood of misery. Now, then, the teacher of those ideas is venomous. The consistent thing for the rest of us animals to do, who are not beasts of prey, is, to kill him as soon as he shows his head ; just as the deer cut the rattlesnake in pieces when- ever they see him, with the lightning thrusts of their sharp hoofs. Why is not this conclusion perfectly just? The only logic which restrains it, is that Christianity which says : " Thou shalt not kill," which the atheist flouts. The only reason we do not treat atheists thus is, that we are not like them, atheists.

SYLLABUS

1. Show the testimony of Consciousness, Reason and Conscience to the soul's spirituality. See

Butler's Analogy, pt. i, ch. i, 2. Turrettin, Locus v. Qu. 14. Hodge, Theol. Vol. i, ch. iii, g 4, E. Dr. S. Clarke's Disc. Vol. ii, prop. 4. Dr. Thomas Brown, Lee. 96, 97. Breckinridge's Theol. Vol. i, p. 58-70. Chalmers' Nat. Theol. bk. iii, ch. 3.

2. Does Natural Theology show the immortality of the soul ? See same authorities.

3. Does Reason hold out any sure prospect of the pardon of our sins ? Butler's Analogy, pt. ii, ch. 5. University Lectures on Evidences : Dr. Van Zandt. pp. 43 to 51. Dr. S. Clarke as above, prop. vi.

4. Can Natural Theology be sufficient for man's religious welfare? How much evidence in the answer for the inspiration of the Bible ?

Turrettin, Locus i, Qu. 4. Univ. Lecture by Van Zandt. Chalmers' Nat Theology, bk. v, ch. i. Dr. S. Clarke, as above, Props, v to viii. Leiand's "Necessity of Revelation," at large.

TN advancing to the solemn question of our immortality, I would remind you of the opening remark of the last

lecture: That practically this question is in- gumentforl^rtrit!^'^''" volved in that of the soul's Spirituality. The

attempts made to infer that the soul is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 65

not a spirit, from certain physical theories, I there endeavored to overthrow. The argument from psychological facts given us in our own consciousness, now remains; and this is obvi- ously the legitimate, the conclusive one. For, let the supposi- tion that man has a separate, immaterial spirit, be once brought into the debate ; and of course, sensuous evidences of its truth or falsehood are equally out of the question, by the very definition of spirit as substance that is simple, monadic, unextended, indivisible, devoid of all sensible attributes. The .■spiritual data of consciousness are the only ones which can pos- sibly give conclusive evidence, for or against the proposition. When the physicist argues that " science" (meaning thereby exclusively the science of sensible phenomena) "tells him noth- ing of spirit," I reply : of course it does not. But if he uses that admission, to argue there is no spirit, he is precisely as prepos- terous, as though he should wish to decide the question whether a given crystal vase contams atmosphere, by remarking that his eye-sight does not detect any colour in the soace included in the vase. Of course it does not; when the very detinition of atmosphere is, of a gas absolutely transparent and colorless in limited masses. Other faculties than eye-sight must decide the question of fact. So other faculties than the senses must decide whether there is a spirit in man ; when the very claim of our hypothesis is, that this spiritual substance is wholly super-sensuous. The only quarrel we have with the physicists for saying " their science tells them of no spirit," is against the apparent intima- tion that the science of sensible things is the only science ! Let Physics observe their proper modesty, as only one branch of valid science ; and let her recognize her elder sisters of the super-sensuous sphere, and we are content she shall announce that result.

The great evidence of the soul's spirituality will be found when inspected, intuitive. Man only knows by his own ideas, recognized in consciousness. The very con- of^ph-i?"'"^''''"''^^ sciousness of these implies a being, a sub- stance which is conscious. So that man's knowledge of himself, as conscious, thinking substance is a priori to, though implicitly present in, all his other thinkings : That is to saj/ ; he knows his own thinking Self first, and only by knowing it, knows any other thing. In other words : Every sound mind must accept this self-evident fact ; my having any idea, sensitive or other, implies the Ego that has it. I can onl>^ have perception of the objective, by assuming a priori, the re- ality of the subjective. I cannot construe to myself any mental state without postulating real being, a subjectum, to which the state may be referred. But this thinking Self is impressed from without wath certain states, called sensations, which we are as inevitably impelled to refer to objective substance, to the no7t Ego. Now in comparing this conviction of the Ego and no'i

5*

66 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

£^0, a certain contrast between their attributes inevitably arises. The first c-mviction which arises out of a thoughtful in- spection of the contents of consciousness, is the singleness of the mind. It learns the qualities of the objective by different sen- sations, but all sensations are inevitably referred to the same knowing subject. The Self who knows by touching, is always identical with that which knows by tasting, smelling, seeing, and hearing. The Self who knows by sensations is identical with that which reflects upon its sensations. The "Self which con- ceives an object of emotion, is the same that feels towards that object. In the midst of the conscious diversity of all these states of mind, there remains the inexorable consciousness of the singleness of the mind affected by them. But the objective al- ways exists before us in plurality.

Next, we learn from sense-perception that all the objective is compounded. The simplest material substance is constituted

by an aggregation of parts, and maybe con-

AndofaMonad. •'• , j^ -j j t-i T w . i

ceived as divided. I he lightest has some

weight ; the smallest has some extension ; all have some fig- ure. But our consciousness tells us intuitively, that the thing in us which thinks, feels, wills, is absolutely simple. Not only does this intution refer all our mental states and acts to one and the same thinking subject, notwithstanding their wide diversity. But zee knozu that they coexist in that subject, without plurality or partition. We are conscious that the agent which conceives, is the same agent which, upon occasion of that concept, is affected with passion. That which hates one object and loves its opposite, is the same agent, nothwithstanding the diversity of these states. Moreover, every affection and act of a mind has an absolute unity. It is impossible even to refer any attribute of extension to it in conception. He who endeavors to imagine to himself a concept that is colored or ponderous (as it is a mental act) an affection that is triangular as distinguished from another that is circular, a judgment that has its top and its bottom, a volition which may be divided by a knife or wedge into halves and quarters, feels inevitably that it is unspeakable folly. All the attributes of extension are absolutely irrelevant to the mind and its acts and states. And especially is this thought fatal to the cohclusion, that mental affections may be functions of organized bodies of matter ; namely : that where- as we know all our mental affections have an absolute unity, we are taught by our senses, that all qualities and affections of or- ganisms are aggregates of similar affections or qualities of parts. The whiteness of a wall is the whiteness of a multitude of separate points in the wall. The magnetism of a metal rod is the aggregate ofthe magnetisms of a multitude of molecules of metal. The properties may be literally subdivided with the masses. The materialistic conception receives a most complete .-'.-■id exact refutation, when we recall the multitude of distinct

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6/

things in consciousness. If the soul is material, then it has some dimensions ; less, at all events than the superficies of our bodies. Recall now, for instance, the countless multitude of ideas marked in our unconscious memory. How are they all distinguishably made on a surface of no more breadth? Re- member, that if materialism is true, the viewing of these ideas in conception, is a sensuous perception. How many distinct lines on an inch's surface can sense perceive ? That is settled with a geometrical exactness ! How then are these countless marks preserved on a surface of sixty inches ; or possibly, of a fraction of one inch?

Now the law of our reason compels us to refer this absolute contrast of attributes to a real difference of substance. While Contrasted attributes we name the Ego, spirit, we must call the imply contrasted sub- objective something else, matter. Man can- stances. j^Ql- j-j-^ii-^i^ at all, without virtually pre- dicating his thinking on the recognition of a substance that thinks, essentially different from the objective, a spiritual monad. We can only know matter, by having known mind. It is impossible, my Brethren, for me to impress you too strongly with the impregnable strength of this position against the materialist. It is our 'Gibraltar.' The man who thinks con- sistently, must always be more certain that there is mind, than that there is matter. Because any valid act of intelligence must imply an intelligent subject. And the recognition of the Ego which knows, is a priori, and in order to perception of an object known by it. If then the existence of mind is uncertain, the existence of anything objective is inevitably more uncertain. Does sense-perception seem to the materialist to give him the most palpable knowledge of the matter external to him ? But he has only been enabled to construe that perception at all, so as to make it a datum of valid knowledge, by first crediting the intuition of consciousness, which reveals the perceiving Agent distinct from the object revealed. How unfair, how unscien- tific is this attempt to use intuition in its less direct, and refuse it in its more direct, testimonies ! If she is to be trusted in her interpretation of the objective sensation, she is, of course, still more to be trusted in her subjective self-consciousness.

Hence, pure idealism is less unphilosophical than mater- ialism. That outrages one class of valid intuitions ; this out- rages two. The stress of the argument nSS^y^'adm-SLg'spli-it ^hich I have just explained, is disclosed in a curious way, by the confessions of sundry of the modern materialists. Huxley, for instance, after abolishing spirit, finds himself in such difficulty, that he feels compelled to spiritualize matter ! Thus his materialism is re- solved into a species of idealism, which he impotently attempts to connect with the metaphysics of Des Cartes. First we are taught that there is no such substance as spirit ; but its supposed

6S SYLLABUS AND NOTES

functions are merely phenomena of Force, the only cause which materialism can recognize in nature. And then, to deliver us from the absurdities of this metaphysic, we are taught that there is no such substance as matter; but this is only an ideal some- thing, possibility of force ! Thus reason was destroyed, to exalt the validity of sense-perception exclusively ; and now sense-per- ception is destroyed in turn, leaving us Nihilism.

Next, I argue, that materialism contradicts our intuition of our own free-agency; Experience shows us two rival classes of effects, the^corporeal being one, thought, feel- feSn"'^ ''^''''' ^^"".ig '^"d volition the other. Now it is impos- sible to think an effect without an adequate cause. But when the reason begins to represent to itself these causes, it perceives an inevitable difference. The corporeal ef- fects are necessary ; the spiritual are free. The one class is the result of blind force ; the other is an expression of free-agency. Here are two heterogeneous causes, matter and spirit, acting the one by force, the other, by free agency.

Materialism contradicts the testimony of our moral conscious- ness. It teaches that matter, if a cause, is _^ Responsibility refutes ^^ involuntary and unintelligent cause. But lue ktioiv that we are responsible ; which un- avoidably implies a rational spontaneity in acting. To hold a blind, material force to a moral responsibility, is preposterous. But this conviction of responsibility in conscience is universal, radical, unavoidable, and intuitive. It is impossible for a man to discharge his mind of it. He cannot think the acknowledged wrong equal to the right, and the admitted wrong-doer irre- sponsible for his wrong, like a rolling stone, a wave, or a flame. These facts of consciousness compel us to admit a substance heterogeneous from matter. Had man no spirit, there would be nothing to be accountable. Had he no God, there would be none to whom to be accountable. If either were true, our very nature would be a lie, and knowledge impossible.

Feeble attempts are made by modern materialists to meet these arguments, by saying first : That consciousness is not to be trusted. Consciousness, say they, is incomplete. She gives no account of the subjective acts and states of infancy; and no correct account of thosfe of the mentally diseased. She tells us nothing usually of the large latent stores of memory. She is absolutely silent as to any interaction of the nerve-system and the spirit ; of which, if there is spirit, there must be a great deal.

But to what does all this amount? Consciousness does not tell us all things, and sometimes tells us

^^ ^Consciousness is trust- ^.^^^^ p jj- ^j^j^ ^^^^^ granted, Still the Stub^

born proposition would remain, that if we cannot trust consciousness, we can have no ideas. The faculty which they would exalt against her, is sensation. Do the senses

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 69

tell US all things ? Are they never deceived? Does sense give any perceptions, save as it is mediated to the understanding by consciousness ? Enough of such special pleadings ! That con- sciousness reveals nothing direct of the interaction of spirit and nerve organs is precisely because spirit and matter are causes so heterogeneous — so that this fact contains one of the most con- clusive proofs against materialism. If our conscious intelligence were only a function of nerve structures, then indeed it might be very natural that the function of intelligence should include, and should represent to us intellectually, every link of the action of the material nerve-force. But because conscious intelligence is not a material, organic function, but is the free action of spirit, a cause and substance wholly heterogeneous from matter, there- fore it is, that just at the connecting step between nerve action in the seiisoriwn and the idea in the intelligence, and between the volition in the rational agent and contraction in the volun- tary nerve matter, there is naturally a chasm of mystery; a re- lation which the omniscient spirit was able to institute; but which sense cannot detect because the interaction is no longfer merely material ; which conscious intelligence does not construe to itself because it is not merely spiritual.

Again it is said : "Grant that there must be an entity within

as, to be the subject of consciousness, why

Consciousness cannot ^^^ ^j^^^ ^^ ^j^^ Brain ?" One answer

be the cram. -'

has been given above : That while the prop- erties and functions of brain matter are material, qualified by attributes of extension; those of consciousness are spiritual, simple, monadic. Another answer is, that consciousness testi- fies that my own brain is, like other matter, objective to that in me which thinks. How do I know that I have a brain ? By the valid analogy of the testimony of anatomists, as to the skulls of all other living men like me. But that testimony is the witness- ing of a sense-perception, which that anatomist had when he opened those other skulls — of an objective knowledge. Hence I only know my brain, as objective to that which is the knowing agent. If I have any valid opinion about the brain, it is that this organ is the instrument by which I think, not the Ego who thinks. Materialists have objected that material affections have this one- ness to our conception ; as a musical tone, the numerous series ■of successive vibrations of a chord divisible into parts. I reply, that the oneness is only in the perception of it. Only as it be- comes our mental affection, does it assume unity. As we trace the effect from the vibration of the chord to that of the air, the tynipammi, the bony series, the aqueous humour, the fimbrated nerv^e, the series is still one of successive parts. It is only when we pass from the material organ to the mind, that the phenome- non is no longer a series of pulses, but a unified sensation. This very case proves most strongly the unifying power which belongs to the mind alone. So, when an extended object pro-

JO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

duces a sensation, though the object perceived is divisible, the

perception thereof, as a mental act, is indivisible.

Now, the soul being another substance than the body, it is

seen at once, that the body's dissolution does 2. The Soul Immortal. . .1 • 1 ^.u i. r i-i it

not necessarily imply that 01 the soul. In- deed, let us look beyond first impressions, and we shall see that the presumption is the other way. The fact that we have already passed from one to another stage of existence, from foetus to in- fant, to child, to man, implies that another stage may await us ; unless there be some such evidence of the soul's dependence on the body for existence (as well as for contact with the external world,) as will destroy that presumption. But there is no such dependence ; as appears from our experience in amputations, flux of bodily particles, emaciation under disease, &c. In none of these cases is the loss of the spirit proportioned to the bodily loss. This independence is proved by the fact, that in sensation even, the bodily organ is merely the soul's instrument. The eye, e. g., is but its optic glass : that in sleep the soul may be active, while the body is passive ; and chiefly, that all the higher pro- cesses of soul, memory, conception, imagination, reasoning, are wholly independent of the body. Even if the grossest repre- sentationist scheme of perception and thought, (that, for in- stance, of Hartly, or of Hobbes,) were adopted, making the pliantasmata or species derived through the senses, the object of perception, still the question returns, How does the soul get its conception of general notions : of time, of space, of God, of self? Herein surely, it is' independent of the body.

It has been objected to this great argument of Bp. Butler, in Argument true, though recent days, and with great clamour, that the cerebral action attend ail discoveries of modern cerebral physiology thought, discredit it. It is claimed that anatomists

have now ascertained, that certain molecular actions in the brain attend what were before supposed to be abstract and independ- ent acts of mind, (or, as the materialist would say, constitute those acts,) as regularly as other molecular actions attend the sensuous functions of the mind. The student will see this point thoroughly anticipated, two hundred years before it was raised,, by Turrettin, in the question cited in the Syllabus. Suppose it true, that a certain excitement of brain-matter attends the ab- stract processes of the mind and the acts of its original sponta- neity. Is it any the less certain that in these cases, the excite- ment of nerve matter is consequence, and the exertion of the spirit's spontaneity is cause? Surely not. Just so surely as, in objective perception, the presentation of the new sense-idea in the intelligence follows the excitement of the nerve matter, in the order of causation ; so surely, in the case of spontaneous thought, feeling and volition, the spiritual action precedes the action of the nerve matter (if there is such action,) in the order of causation. So that, in the sense of Bp. Butler's argument,

OE LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. J\

these acts of soul are independent of bodily action still. The clamour which has been made by materialists here, is a good in- stance of modern ignorance or oblivion of the history of opin- ion. Suppose the recent doctrine of the physiological " cere- bration of ideas" be proved universal as to all the soul's acts, what have we, more than the hypothesis of Hartley, which made sensations "vibrations," and concepts " vibratiuncles," in a nervous substance ? No competent philosopher of the past regarded that hypothesis, whether granted or refuted, as afford- ing any sufficient account of the facts of consciousness. But the very attempt to employ the hypothesis thus has been the laughing-stock of science.

Here again, materialists have objected, that the cases of mental imbecility in mfancy and dotage, and

Ply'^tre^SstoS;.'"- Of "^^"i^ or l^^nacy^ seem to show a strict dependence of soul on body, if not an iden- tity. In dotage, is not the mind, like the body, tottering to its extinction ? If our theory of monadic spirit were true, would mental disease be possible ? I reply, that strictly speaking, spirit is not essentially or organically diseased. It is the bodily organ of its action, which is deranged, or weakened. Bear in mind, that though there are undoubted processes of thought independent of the body, sensations form the larger portion of our subjects of thought and volition. Now, remember that the soul is subject to the law of habit ; and we shall easily see that where, through the disease of the bodily organs, the larger num- ber of the objects of its action are distorted, the balance of its working may be disturbed, and yet the soul's substance undis- eased. That this is the correct explanation is confirmed by what happens in dreams ; the mind's action is abnormal ; it is because the absence of sensations has changed the balance of its working. Let the body awake, and the ordinary current of sensations flow aright, and the mind is at once itself. Again, in lunacy and dotage, ideas gained by the mind before the bodily disease or decline took place, are usually recalled and used by the mind correctly ; while more recent ones are either distorted, or wholly evanescent. Finally, while it is inconsistent to ascribe an organic disease to that which is not organized, a functional derangement does not seem wholly out of the question.

It appears then, that the thinking monad is independent of Only death known is the body for its existence. Impressive as are dissolution. The soul the changes of bodily dissolution, they con- ^"^P^^- tain no philosophic ground for denying the

conclusion drawn from the experience of the soul's existence through so many moments and so many changes. But the phe- nomenon of death itself suggests a powerful analogy to show that the soul will not die. What is death ? It is but separation of parts. When we examine all the seemingly destructive pro- cesses of nature, combustion, decomposition, we find no atom

72 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of matter annihilated ; they only change their collocations. There is no proof that God ever destroys an atom. The soul is a spiritual atom ; why suppose it is destroyed ? The only death is dissolution ; the soul cannot dissolve. And this is my con- ception of its immortality ; not a self or necessary existence, but the absence of all intrinsic ground of decay, and of all pur- pose in its Maker to extinguish its being.

But, objects the materialist : The same reasonings would

prove the immortality of brutes. They thSotnimmorS?^' have proccsses of memory, association and

volition, from which the same conclusion of the presence in them of simple, spiritual substance, would follow. They might argue from their consciousness of mental states, the same necessary distinction between the subject and object. They also have a species of spontaneity.

I reply, that this is an objection ad ignorantiam. Where is the necessary absurdity, should it be that brutes have spirits ? It might contradict many prejudices ; but I see not what prin- ciple of established truth. If it is no just logic to say, that our premises may or may not contain conclusions of an unknown nature ; when the question is, whether they do not contain this known and unavoidable conclusion, the spirituality of man. The nature of the mental processes of the higher brutes, espe- cially, is very mysterious. It seems most probable that their spirits differ from man's chiefly in these two traits : the absence of all moral ideas and sentiments, and the inability to construe the contents of their own consciousness rationally. And these two are the most essential to a rational personality. The moral arguments for immortality then, which are the most conclusive in man's case, and those from the indefinite perfectibility of his mental powers, are all lacking in the case of the brute. What God chooses to do with this principle in the brute, which is the seat of instinct, appetite, perception, memory, passion, and per- haps of judgment, when the body dies. Natural Theology is unable to tell us. Only when we come to Revelation, do we learn that " the spirit of the brute goeth downward, while the spirit of man goeth upward." Ignorance here is no argument against the results of positive knowledge elsewhere.

The well known argument for a future existence from God's

righteousness, compared with the imperfect a SmrlSiJe.""^"" distribution of awards here, need not be

elaborated. All your books state it. It is conclusive. An objection has, indeed, been urged : That if the awards are so unequal, no evidence remains of God's perfect rectitude ; and so the former premise is lost. I reply : The course of temporal providence is neither the only, nor chief proof of God's rectitude. Conscience demonstrates that attri- bute, without the light of observation. Further: while the nwards are not exact, they approximate exactness here, showing

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 73

that it is God's nature to be, finally, strictly just. And last, the inequalities of awards are explained consistently with God's rec- titude by this : that they give scope for man's fortitude and sym- pathy, and for God's long suffering.

Conscience, apprehending God's justice, gives us a differ- ent and an instinctive proof of a future ex- oiibcience. istence. Remorse for sins does by no means

verge towards its termination, as death approaches; but recruits its fury. If the soul could apprehend this life as its only exis- tence, at the conscious approach of death, remorse would relax its grasp ; and at the expiring breath, would release the crimi- nal, as having paid the debt of justice. We find in the dying conscience an inevitable and universal recognition of its immor- tality.

The ancient, and some modern, moralists, attached much

importance to man's longing for existence,

Does hope prove It? j^^^.^.^^ ^^ extinction, and hopes in the future.

I cannot but feel, with Dr. Brown, that these lack weight. Is not this horror of extinction resolvable into that love of life which we share with the animals? Hope does, indeed, ever fly before us, to the end. But it is not as much a hope of sensual or worldly good, as of spiritual ? But should we infer from these premises, that a brute's or a man's animal existence will be perpetual, we should err,

I find a more solid argument in man's capacity to know Man's spiritual capaci- ^nd serve God, and in his capacity of indefi- ties formed for immor- nite mental and moral improvement. God's ^^^^^y- motive for creating, must have been from

Himself; because, when He began, nothing else existed whence to draw it. He must, therefore, have sought, in creation, to satisfy and glorify His own perfections. Natural Theology tells us of no rational creatures, save men. Should there ever be a time when there are no rational creatures in the universe, there would be no recipients of God's spiritual goodness, and none to comprehend His glory. To have no eyes to behold the light, is virtually to quench it. Can we then believe that the only crea- ture capable of knowing and enjoying Him shall perish so soon — perish, as to the majority of our race, before they understand Him at all ? But again, man, unlike all other sentient creatures, is capable of indefinite improvement. The ox, the elephant, the horse, soon reaches the narrow limits of its mtelligence ; and these, the same fixed by the common instincts of its race, for its progenitors. The first bee built its cells as artistically as those of this " enlightened century." But man can make almost in- definite advancements. And when he has taken all the strides between a Newton or a Washington, and a naked Australian, there is no reason, save the narrow bounds of his mortal life, to limit his farther progress. Further : it is precisely in his mental and moral powers, that the room for growth exists. His muscu-

74 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

lar strength soon reaches that standard beyond which there is no usual increase. His senses are educated up to a certain penetration ; there the vast and the minute arrest them. But memor}% reason, conscience, affections, habits, may be cultivated to indefinite grades of superiority. Let us now view man's ter- restrial pursuits, his vanity, his disappointments, his follies, and the futilities in which the existence of most men is consumed. How utterly trivial! How unworthy of the grand endowment ! If this life were all, well might we exclaim, with the Hebrew poet, " Wherefore hast Thou made all men in vain ?" IVe see that God is unspeakably wise in all His comprehended works ; we must conclude that He has not expended so much for naught ; that these seeds of immortality will inherit their suitable growth. I see a man setting scions in his nursery a few inches apart ; but I learn that they are trees which will require forty feet for their ultimate growth. If the man knows what he is about, I con- clude that he intends to transplant them.

For these various reasons, then, we may look across the

gulf of death with the confident expectation Reason divines no bodi- ^f ^ f^^^^^ soiritual existence. I say spirit- iy resurrection. *■ -^ ^

ual ; for the resurrection of the body is a

doctrine of pure revelation, for which natural reason presents us only the faintest analogies, if any. It is the glory of the Bible, that it alone reveals the immortality of man, of the whole united person, which lives, hopes, fears, sins, and dies here. But in proving the immortality of the soul, a sufficient basis is laid for the larger part of the moral forces which bring our responsibility to bear aright. The essential point is to evince the proper identity of the being who acts here, and is rewarded hereafter. It is mental, and not personal identity, which lays this essential basis for responsibility. It is the spirit which understands, feels, and chooses, which recognizes identity in its conscious- ness. Hence, it is the spirit which is responsible.

Now, if existence is continued beyond the grave, there is Future Existence nothing to check the conclusion that it will must be Endless, and be continued forever. Suppose a soul just under Responsibility, emerged from the impressive revolution of bodily death ? then it must repeat all the reasonings w'e have considered, and with redoubled force, that after so many changes are survived, a fortiori, all others will be. But if man's conscious existence is continuous and endless, few will care or dare to deny that his moral relations to God are so, likewise. For they proceed directly from the mere original relation of creature to Creator. The startling evidences that this life is somehow a probation for that endless existence, the youth of that immortal manhood, have been stated by Bishop Butler with unrivalled justness. No more is needed by the student than to study him.

Conscience convinces every man that he is a sinner, and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 75

^ that God is just. Does natural reason infer

hopeof°pardonT"No! ^ny adequate proofs that God will, on any terms, be merciful; or is His righteousness as imperative as that conscience, which is His vicegerent within us? This is the question of most vital interest to us in natural religion. We are pointed to the abounding evidences of God's benevolence, and told that mercy is but benevolence towards the guilty. But, alas ! Nature is almost equally full of eviden- ces of His severity. Again, we are pointed to that hopeful feature in the order- of His providence, which is but another expression for the regular ordering of His will, where we see remedial processes offered to man, for evading the natural con- sequences of his errors and faults. Does man surfeit himself? Nature offers a healing medicine, and arrests the death which his intemperance has provoked. Does the prodigal incur the penalty of want? Repentance and industry may repair his broken fortunes. So, alleviations seem to be provided on every hand, to interpose mercifully between man's sins and their nat- ural penalties. May we not accept these as showing that there is some way in which God's mercy will arrest our final retribu- tion? This expectation may have that slight force which will prepare us to embrace with confidence the satisfaction of Christ, when it is revealed to us in the gospel. But I assert that, with- out revelation, all these slight hints of a possible way of mercy are too much counterbalanced by the appearances of severity, to ground any hope or comfort in the guilty breast. What is the testimony of Conscience? Does she accept any of the throes of repentance, or the natural evils inflicted on faults, as a sufficient atonement? On the contrary, after the longest series of temporal calamities, the approach of death only sharpens her lash. The last act of culminating remorse, as the trembling criminal is dismissed from his sufferings here, is to remit him to a just and more fearful doom beyond the grave. And what say conscience and experience of the atoning virtue of our repentance and reformations ? They only repair the consequences of our faults in part. The sense of guilt remains : yea, it is the very nature of repentance to renew its confession of demerit with every sigh and tear of contrition. And the genuineness of the sorrow for sin has no efficacy whatever to recall the consequences of the wrong act, and make them as though they had never been. But, above all, every palliation of natural penalty, every remedial process offered to our reach by nature, or ministered by the self-sacrifice of friends, is but temporary. For, after all, death comes to every man, to the most penitent, the most genuinely reformed, the restored sinner most fenced in by the mediatorial love of his fellows, as cer- tainly as to the most reckless profligate ; and death is the terrible sum of all natural penalties. This one, universal fact, undoes everything which more hopeful analogies had begun,

76 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and compels us to admit that the utmost reason can infer of God's mercy is, that it admits a suspension of doom.

The last question which we shall now discuss in Natural

Theology, is concerning its sufficiency to lead a soul to eternal

blessedness. Now, I have strenuously con-

4. Is Natural Theology tended that there is some science of Natural sumcient : .

Theology. we have seen that it teaches us

clearly our own spirituality and future existence, the existence and several of the attributes of God, His righteousness and goodness and our responsibility to Him, His providential con- trol over all His works, and our endless relation to the sanctions of His moral attributes. But man needs more than this for his soul's well-being ; and we assert that Natural Theology is fatally de- fective in the essential points. We might evince this practically by pointing to the customary state of all gentile nations, to the darkness of their understanding and absurdities of their beliefs, the monstrous perversions of their religious worship, and the blackness of their general morals.their evil conscience during their lives, and their death-beds either apathetic or despairing. If it be said that I have chosen unfavourable examples, then I might argue the point practically again, by pointing to the brightest specimens of pagan philosophy. We see that with all the germs of truth mixed with their creeds, there were many errors, that their virtues lacked symmetry and completeness, and their own confessions of uncertainty and darkness were usually emphatic in proportion to their wisdom.

But to specify. One fatal defect of Natural Theology has been already illustrated. Man knows himself a sinner in the

hands of righteous Omnipotence, and has no ^^""rate^^""^' ^^^ ^^' assurance whatever of any plan of mercy. An

equally fatal defect might be evinced, (far more clearly than divines have usually done,) in its lack of regen- erating agency. If we knew nothing of the sad story of Adam's probation and fall, just reasoning would yet teach us, that man is a morally depraved being. The great fact stands out, that his will is invincibly arrayed against the mandates of his own conscience, on at least some points. Every man's will exhibits this tendency in some respects, with a certainty as infallible as any law of na- ture. Now such a tendency of will cannot be revolutionized by any system of moral suasion ; for the conclusive reason that the efficacy of all objective things to act as inducements, depends on the state of the will, and therefore cannot revolutionize it. The effect cannot renew its own cause. But Natural Theology offers no moral force higher than moral suasion. Can then the creature who remains an everlasting sinner, possess everlasting well-being ? Another striking defect of Natural Theology is its lack of authority over the conscience. One would think that where

the inferences of natural reason appeared con- Lacks Authority. clusive, bringing the knowledge of a God to

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 77-

the understanding, this God would be recognized as speaking in all her distinct assertions ; and the conscience and heart would bow to him as implicitly as when He is revealed in His word. But practically it is not so. Men are but too ready to hold re- vealed truth in unrighteousness ; and Natural Theology has ever shown a still greater lack of authority, even over hearts which avowed her truth. Perhaps the reason of this is, that every mind has indistinctly and half consciously recognized this profound metaphysical defect, which underlies nearly all her rea- sonings. How do we first know spirit? By our own conscious- ness, presenting to us the thinking hgo. How do w^e know thought, volition, power ? As we are first conscious of it in our- selves. What is our first cognition of the right and the wrong ? It is in the mandates of our consciences. And the way we con- ceive of the infinite Spirit, with His thought, will, power, recti- tude, is by projecting upon Him our self-derived conception of this essence and these attributes, freed from the limitations which belong to ourselves. Seeing, then, that God and His character are to so great an extent but ourselves objectified, elevated above our conscious defects, and made absolute from our con- scious limits, how can we ever know^ that the correspondence of the objective reality, with this conception of it, is accurate ? It is as though our self-consciousness were the mirror, in which alone we can see the spectrum of the great Invisible reflected. How shall we ever tell to what degree it may be magnified, distorted, coloured, by the imperfection of the reflecting surface, seeing Natural Theology can never enable us to turn around and inspect the great original, eye to eye ? That something is there, a something vast, grand and real, our laws of thought for- bid us to doubt ; and that it has a general outline like the re- flected image, we may not doubt ; for else, what was it that cast the mighty spectrum upon the disc of our reason ? But reason can never clear up the vagueness and uncertainty of outline and de- tail, nor verify His true features. Now, when Revealed The- ology comes, it enables us to make this verification ; and especially when we see "God manifest in the flesh," " the brightness of the Father's glory, and express image of His person."

It may be asked, if Natural Theology cannot save, why study it? I answer: 1st. It teaches some truths ; and no truth is valueless. 2d. When Revelation comes, MoSf'"'^^^''''''"' Natural Theology gives satisfaction to the mind, by showing us two independent lines of proof for sundry great propositions? 3d. It excites the craving of the soul for a Revelation. 4th. When that comes, it assists us to verify it, because it meets the very wants which Natural Theology has discovered.

Finally, if Revelation is absolutely necessary for salvation, there is the strongest probability that God has given one. This

78 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

appears from God's goodness and wisdom. ex^e^tS"^""*'"" "^^^ ^' It is proved, second, by the admissions of the

Deistical argument, which always assumes the burden of proof in the proposition: "Revelation is' not necessary." It appears, third, from the gene ral expectation and desire of a communication from the skies among Pagans. Last: when we see (as will be demonstrated at an other place) that the enjoyment of infallible communications from the infinite Mind is the natural condition of life to all reasonable spirits, the argu- ment will become conclusive, that God surely has given a mes- sage to man. Now, no other book save the Bible presents even a plausible claim to be that Revelation.

SYLLABUS

1. Has man any "Innate Ideas" ? See,

Locke's Essay, bk. i, cli. 2. Morell, Hist. Mod. Phil., pp. 76 to 95, (Cart''-'s Ed.) Cousin, Du Vrai, Le?ons ire et 2ine. Dugald Stuart on the Mird, chaps, i, iii, iv.

2. Must all thinking proceed from Intuitive Beliefs ? Why ? Why are they, if unproved, received as valid? What the answer to the Skeptical Conclusion of Mon- taigne or Hume?

Morell, pp. 252-254. Jouffroy, Intr. to Ethics, vol. i, Lectures 8-10. Cousin, Du Vrai, Legons 3me et 4eme.

3. What are the tests of Intuitive Beliefs ? Show that our belief in our own Consciousness; In our Spiritual Existence; In our Identity; In the reahty of the Exte:'nal World ; and in EstabUshed Axioms, belong to this class.

Cousin, as above. Sensualistic Phil, of 19th Cent., ch. 11. Mills' Logic, bk. ii, ch. 5th.

4. Prove, especially, that our belief in Causation and power is Intuirive.

Same authorities. Mill, bk. ii, ch. 5th, and bk. iii, ch. 5th and 21st. Dr. Thomas Brown, Lect. 7th. Morell, pp. 186, 187, 254, 3S2, &c. Chalmers' Nat. Thelog}', bk. i, ch. 4lh. Thorn well, vol. i, p. 499, &c. Show the relation between this doctrine, and Nat. Theolog}' and all science, \ 7.

IV/TANY think, with Locke, that the inquiry into the powers of the human mind should precede all other science, be- Is it necessary to study cause one should know his instrument before the mind's powers, be- he uses it. But what instrument of knowing fore all else? jg j^^^j ^q employ in the examination of his

own mind? Only his own mind. Hence, it follows, that the mind's native laws of thinking must be, to some extent at least, taken upon trust, at the outset, no matter where we begin. This is the less to be regretted, because the correct use of the mind's powers depends on nature, and not on our success in analyzing them. Men syllogized before Aristotle, and genera- lized before Bacon. I have therefore not felt obliged to begin with these inquiries into the sources of our thinking; but have

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 79

given you a short sketch of Natural Theology to familiarize your minds to your work.

You may ask : Since every science must employ the ' „^^ ^ ^ ^ mental powers, and yet the teacher of TlSgy? ' ''''' Chemistry, Mathematics, Mechanics, does not find it necessary to preface his instruc- tions with inquiries into the laws and facts of psychology, why should the divine do it? One answer is that thoroughness in theology is much more important. Another is, experience shows that theological speculation is much more intimately concerned with a correct psychology than physical. The great English mathematicians, of the school of Newton, have usually held just views of philosophy ; the French of the school oi La Place have usually been sensualistic ideologues of the lowest school. In mathematics and astronomy, they have agreed well enough ; in theology, they have been as wide apart as Christianity and atheism. This is because theology and ethicks are little concerned with physical observations : much with ab- stract ideas and judgments. For these reasons it is necessary for the divine to attain correct views of the great facts of mental science ; while yet we do not stake the validity of theo- logical truths on the validity of any mere psychological argu- ments.

My purpose is to give by no means a complete synopsis, even, of mental science ; but to settle for you correct opinions concerning those fundamental facts and laws of spirit, upon which theological questions most turn.

Of these I take up first the question : Has the mind any

innate ideas ? The right answer is. No ; but I. Oueshon of innate •- 1 • , 1 • 1 ^ • • i- . ,

j^jg^g/^ it has mnate powers, which a pi ion dictate

certain laws of thought and sensibility, when- ever we gain ideas by sensitive experience. Locke, famous for exploding the doctrine of innate ideas, goes too far; teaching that we derive all our ideas (he defines an idea, whatever we have in our minds as the object of thought) from sensation. This he holds is a passive process ; and all that the processes of reflection (the active ones) can do, is to recall, group, com- pare, combine, or abstract these materials. Before sensation, the mind is a tabula rasa, without impress in itself, passively awaiting whatever may be projected on it from without. To show that no ideas are innate, he takes up two classes, hitherto considered most clearly such, abstract ideas of space, time, identity, and infinity, &c., and axioms ; assuming that if these can be explained as derived ideas, and not innate, there are none such. He teaches, then, that we only get the idea of space, by seeing two bodies separated thereby ; of time, by deriving it from the succession of mental impressions ; of iden- tity, as remembered consciousnesses. Axioms, he holds to be clearly truths of derivation, because untutored minds do not

8o SYLLABUS AND NOTES

believe them, as they would were they intuitive, until they see them from concrete, experimental cases, by sensation.

Consider how far this kind of vicious anylysis may lead,

as in the hands of Condillac, Comte, and .sSSLS^fpi;:!;*^' Mill, to sensationalism and last, to material-

ism and atheism. If no first truth is of higher source than an inference of experience, then none can be safely postulated beyond experience. Hence, the argument for a God, the belief of all the supernatural, is invalid. Wit- ness Hume's evasion, that the world is a "singular effect." How can sensation show us a God? Another equally logical, although a most heterogeneous consequence, is the Pyrrhonism of Bishop Berkeley. And another must be the adoption of of some artificial scheme of ethicks, resolving the highest law of conscience into a deduction of self-interest, or some such wretched theory. For if there is nothing in the mind, save what comes by sense, (Ni/iz! in intellectii quod non prius in sensii,) whence the notions of right and obligation?

The great error of the analysis of Locke was in mistaking

the occasional cause, sensation, for the

efficient cause of abstract ideas, which is the reason itself. For example : We first develope the idea of space, when we see bodies in space ; but the idea of space is. implied a priori, in the very perception of that which is ex- tended, not learned derivatively from it. True, our most natural conception of time is of that measured in our succes- sive consciousnesses. But the word, "succession" once spoken, time is already conceived. That is to say, the reason, on per- ceiving a thing extended, intuitively places it in space ; and event, in time ; the sense furnishing the occasion, the reason furnishing the abstract notion, or form, for the concrete percep- tion. So in the other cases. To the attempt to derive axioms, we answer that the sensitive experience of some instance is the occasion, but the intuition of the reason the efficient, of these primitive and necessary judgments. For since our experiences of their truth are few and partial, how can experience tell us that they are universally true? To the objection, that they do not universally and necessarily command the assent of un- tutored minds, I fearlessly rejoin that this is only true in cases where the language of their enunciation is not understood. But of this, more anon.

To show the student how shallow is the analysis which

traces the whole of our thinking to sense, I notion'T'""''''^''"'" ask: When the "reflective" processes of

comparison, e. g.,.have given us perception of a relation between two sensible objects, (as of a ratio be- tween two dimensions,) is not this relation a new idea? Whence is it? '

In a word, you may find the simplest, and also the highest

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 8 1

and most general refutation of this sensual- e„Sedt"!,Xb'„'.t i=^"= philosophy in this fact. The mind is

an intelligent agent. Has it any attributes? Any cognizable, permanent essentia? Surely. Now, then, must not those essential qualities imply powers? And will any one say that they are only passive powers, and yet the mind is an agent? Surely not. Then the mind, although not furnished with innate ideas, must have some innate powers of deter- mining its own acts of intelligence.

It is related that when Locke's Essay on the Human Un- derstanding was first reported to his great cotemporary, Leib- nitz, some one remarked that Locke's system of psychology was built on a literal acceptation of the old scholastic maxim. Nihil in intellectn, quod non prins in sensit. Leibnitz answered : Ita ; Nisi Intellectns Ipse ! These words contain the key to the whole discussion.

There is a plausible temptation to deny this, and to treat all our notions and beliefs as derived. It 2. All our beliefs g^j-^ggg from the feeling that it is more philo- cannot be proved. i • i i i^

sophical to take nothing upon trust : to re- quire proof of everything. But does not a derived truth imply something to derive from? If therefore primitive judgments are treated as derived, the problem is only removed one step backward to this question : Whence the truths of which these are the deductions? Primary or derived? To prove every postulate is therefore impossible ; because the first proof implies some premise from which to prove. Unless then, some things are seen to be true intuitively, there can be no reasoning. And these unproved truths are the foundations of all that we prove. The question then arises. If these primary beliefs are un- proved, how can we know that any of our

Metaphysical Skep- thinking thence is true ? I have now intro- ticism. Its grounds. ^

duced you to the very centre of the skeptical objections of the school of Montaigne and Hume, against the certainty of all human knowledge. Let us also view the other, less radical grounds. They argue, then : 1st. That knowledge must be uncertain as long as it is incomplete ; because the dis- covery of the unknown related parts may change our view of those supposed to be known. And that men in all ages have believed differently with equal confidence. 2d. That percep- tion only shows us qualities, and not substances, so that we have only the mind's inference, unproved and undemonstrable, for the existence and essence of the latter. 3d. That our organs of sense, the instruments of all perceptions, are per- petually changing their atomic structure ; that they often de- ceive us ; that the significance which we give to sensations depends on habits, knowledge and education ; and that as to memory, we must take the correctness of her reproductions wholly upon trust. 4th. That our general and abstract ideas, 6*

82 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

such as those of causation, space, identit}^ substance, &c., have not even the uncertain evidence of sensation ; but are given by the mind's own a priori forms of thought ; so that we have no proof for them, save that nature teaches us to think so. And last : The sweeping objection is, that man only knows his own subjective states; to the outside of that charmed circle he can never pass, to compare those states with objective reality. But as there is no ground for our assuming the validity of this objective perception, except that it is nature to make it, we have only to suppose a different structure giv^en to our minds, to make all seem false, which now seems true.

Such are the sweeping objections. To the first three of

the special ones, there is one general and Refutation of skepti- perfectly valid "answer. It is not proved that

all the teachings of sensation, memory, reason, are untrustworthy, because they are sometimes misin- terpreted, or because men differ about them sometimes. For the mind knows that it is furnished with criteria for verifying seeming perceptions, recollections, inferences, which criteria give certain results, when applicable, and when faithfully ap- plied. If there are no such, how did the skeptic find out the falsehood of so many of the seeming dicta of these faculties? As to the first and radical plea, that primitive judgments must be, from their very nature, unproved, and that man can never know anything besides his own subjective states, I freely grant that a direct logical refutation is out of the question, from the very terms of it. But a valid indirect one lies in these facts : 1st. That the skeptic, just as much and as necessarily, holds these primary beliefs as w^e do. Being irnplied in the validity of all other beliefs, they must be accepted as true, or all think- ing must cease ; w^e are no longer intelligent beings. But the skeptic will think: his argument against us is thinking, (erro- neous.) 2d. We cannot conceive how an intelligent being could be formed at all, against whose primary beliefs the same objections would not lie ; and most against God's ! 3d. The fact that primitive beliefs are unproved is the very glory of their certainty, and not their w^eakness. They admit no proof, only because they are so immediate. The perversity of the skeptic is just that of the man who, when in perfect contact with a tree or post, should declare it impossible to ascertain whether it was near or distant, because forsooth he was so near that no measuring rule could be introduced, to measure the distance ! 4th. Chiefly we apply the argumentum ad Jioniincm of Pascal. If no knowledge can be certain, then the skeptic must not affirm his unbelief; for this, if admitted, would be a true proposition. The very mental processes exhibited in these objections imply many of the primary beliefs, against the va- lidity of which the skeptic objects. If nothing can be proved, Avhat right has he to go about proving that nothing can be

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 83

proved ? Finally : Truth is intrinsic, and not a mere conse- quence of our mental structure.

The tests of an intuitive or primary truth established by the best writers are three, (i.) They are pri- ti^^jSgmenu?^""'" ^^ry : (what Hamilton calls, ambiguously, incomprehensible, not capable of being com- prehended under some more general and primary judgment, and of being explained thereby.) They are primary, because they are not derived or inferred from any other truth, prior in order of proof to the'm ; but are seen to be true without any dependence on a premise, (2.) They are necessary — i. e., the mind not only sees they are true, but must be true ; sees that the negation of them would lead to a direct contradiction. (3.) They are universal — i. e., the mind is obliged to believe them as much true in every relevant case, as in the first ; and .all people that are sane, when the terms of their enunciation are comprehended with entire fairness, and dispassionately considered, are absolutely certain, the world over, to accept them as true. Now, our adversaries, the sensationalists, would freely admit that if the mind has any judgments which would stand these three tests, they are indeed immediate intuitions. The most practical way, therefore, to discuss their validity, will be to do it in application to special classes of supposed intuitions.

Are the propositions called axiomatic truths, immediate

intuitions ; or are they derived truths ? Sen- Axioms are such. ,• 1- , ,1 1 ,, 1 ,1

sationalists say, the latter; because they are

not primary truths ; but deductions of our experience ; for they say, as we have seen Locke write, no one has them till he learns them by experimental, sensational trial, and observation ; and the announcement of them, instead of receiving from the untutored mind that immediate assent we claim, would, in many cases, excite only a vacant stare. We have already shown that the concrete case is only the occasion, not the source, of the axiomatic judgment. And as to the latter objection, the mind hitherto uninformed fails to assent to them, only because he does not understand the terms of, or comprehend the relations connected with, the proposition. Grant that the presenting of a concrete, experimental case is at first necessary to enable this mind to comprehend terms and relations ; still we claim (the decisive fact) that once they are comprehended, the acceptance of the proposition is inevitable. How preposterous is this ob- jection, that because the mind did not see, while the medium was obstructed, therefore the object is not visible ? One might, with equal justice, say that my child had no faculty qf im- mediate eye-sight, because he would not be willing to affirm which of " two pigs in a poke " was the bigger! I argue again under this head, that several axioms are incapable of being ex- perimentally inferred ; because they never can be brought under the purview of the senses ; e. g. " Divergent straight

84 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

lines will never meet if produced to infinity." No one will ever inspect with his sight or touch an infinite line ! But, says Mill, one forms a mental diagram of an infinite pair of lines ; and by inspection of them, learns the truth. On this queer subterfuge, we might remark that it is more refreshing to us than consistent for them, that sensationalists should admit that the abstract ideas of the mind can be subjects of experimental reasoning. We had been told all along that true science dealt only with phenojnena. It is also news to us that sensationalism can grant the mind any power of conceiving infinite lines! What are those, but those naughty things, absolute ideas, with which the mind ought not to have any lawful business, because they are not given to her by sensation ? But chiefly, Mill's evasion is worthless in the presence of this question : what guides and compels the mind in the formation of the infinite part of this mental diagram, so as to ensure its correspondence with the sensible part? Not sense, surely; for that is the part of the mental diagram, which no eye can ever see. It is just this a priori power of judgment, which Mill denies. My argu- ment stands. Once more I argue on this head, that axioms cannot be experimentally derived ; because they are universal truths : but each man's experience is partial. The first time a child ever divides an apple, he at once apprehends that the whole is larger than either of its parts. At this one illustration of it, he as much believes it of all the divided apples of the universe, as though he had spent an age in dividing millions of apples for experiment. How can a universal truth come from a single case ? If experience were the source of the belief, the greatest multitude of cases one could try, would never be enough to demonstrate a universal proposition ; for the propor- tion of similar cases possible in the universe, and still untried, would be infinitely preponderant still. Experience of the past can, of itself, never determine the future.

The sensationalist is inconsistent. He says axioms are learned from experience by sense ; and there are no primary judgments of the pure reason. Aye ! But how does the mind learn that sensational experience is true ? that perceptions have any validity ? Only by a primary judgment ! Here then is the axiomatic truth that what sense gives us experimentally is true.. This, surely, is not derived ! Indeed, the attempt to construct a system of cognitions with a denial of primary ideas and judg- ments, will be found in every case as preposterous as the attempt to hang a chain upon nothing.

When we ask whether axiomatic truths will meet the second

test, that of necessity, sensationalists say :

For axioms are neces- u^l^^^^ jg^ necessary truth? Does one

sary truths. . 1.1 • • 1

answer, with Whewell, that it is one the nega- tion of which is inconceivable ; then this is no test of primary truths, no test of truths at all ; because our capacity for con-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 85

ceiving things to be possible or otherwise, depends on our men- tal habits, associations, and acquirements, notoriously ; e. g. The Guinea negro king could not conceive it possible that water could be solidified by cold in the higher latitudes. This will be found to be a mere verbal sophism, deriving its whole plausibility from the unlucky use of a vague term by the friends of the true theory. A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable con- tradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the oppo- site cannot possibly be true. Let any man consult his con- sciousness : is not the proposition, " a whole is greater than its parts," seen by the reason in a light of necessity, totally dif- ferent from this : "The natives of Guinea are generally black, of England generally white ?" Yet the latter is as true as the for- mer!

Last, on this head, sensationalists ring many changes on the

assertion that axiomatic beliefs are not held by

e> are nueisa . ^^^ t^qii alike ; that there is debate what are

axioms, and the widest differences ; and that some things long held to be necessary truths, (e. g. Ex niliilo nihil Jit ; nature abhors a vacuum ; a body cannot act without a medium on an- other with which it is not present,) are now found not only to be not axioms, but not true at all. I reply, all this proves that the human mind is an imperfect instrument, as to its primary judgments; not that it has none. The same mode of objecting would prove, with equal fairness, (or unfairness,) that derived truths have no inferential validity; for the differences about them have been still wider. Man is often incautious in his think- ing, unconsciously blinded by hypothesis, habit and prejudice; and thus he has sometimes (not so very often after all) failed to apply the tests of axiomatic truth carefully. Still the fact re- mains, that there are first truths, absolutely universal in their acceptance, on which every sane mind in the world acts, and al- ways has acted from Adam's day, with unflinching confidence. On that fact I stand.

The remarks made in introducing my discussion of the im- materiality of the soul, have already indicated Our own Spiritual Ex- ^l^g grounds on which we claim our belief istence Intuitively Seen. . ° . . , . ...

m our own spu'itual existence as an mtuition.

In the proposition Cogito, ergo sum, Des Cartes meant to indi- cate what is undoubtedly true, that the very consciousness of thinking implies an intuitive perception of an existing substance that thinks. But what better definition of spirit, as a something instinctively contrasted with matter, than that it is substance which thinks?

Locke made our very belief of our own identity, a derived

86 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

notion, the simple result of our remembered Seen?"''*^ Intuitively consciousnesses. It may be very true that a second consciousness succeeding a first, may be the occasion of the rise of our notion of identity. But it cannot be the cause, for the identity of the thinking being who has the two consciousnesses is implied a priori in those states. The word self cannot be comprehended by our thought without comprehending in it the notion of identity. And it has been well remarked that our belief in our identity cannot be a deduc- tion, because it must be implied beforehand, in our very capacity to perceive any relation between premises and conclusion. If the comprehension of the former is not felt to be the act of the same thinking subject who comprehends the latter, then of course there is no possibility of a logical dependence being perceived between them.

Once more, we assert against Berkeley, and all other ideal- ists, that our reference of our sensations to ImuiS/seen^^^^'^'"''' ^" external world as their cause, and that a world of substances to which the mind refers the qualities which a lone sensation perceives, is a valid intuition. It is primary ; witness the notable failures of all the attempts to analyse it into something more primary, from Aristotle to Reid. It is necessary ; for the pure idealist can no more rid himself of the practical belief that this was an objective reality, and not a mere subjective notion of a pain, which caused him to feel that he had butted his head against a post. And it is universal. All minds learn it. And if we analyse the mental part of our sen- sation, we shall find that perception is, in its very nature, a per- ception of a relation between sensitive mind and outward mat- ter. Grant to the idealist even the assertion that the mind im- mediately knows only its own subjective states; yet, when it is conscious of the subjective part of what we call a perception, it still knows by its consciousness, that there was an effect which it did not induce upon itself Surely this subjectivity must in- clude a consciousness of its own volitions. So, of the absence of a volition of its own. Then, as the mind intuitively and necessarily knows that no effect can be without a cause, it must refer this phenomenon, the subjective act of perception, con- sciously uncaused from within, to some real thing without.

But the intuition which has been most debated, and is of most fundamental importance to theologians, fec^uStivIS^Belllvfc!: ^^ our notion of causation. The doctrine of common sense here is, that when the mind sees an effect, it intuitively refers it to some cause, as producing its occurrence. Moreover, the antecedent something which made it to be, is intuitively apprehended as having a pozvcr to produce its occurrence ; otherwise it would not have occurred. For the mind is impelled by its own nature to think, that if there had not been a something adequate to make the occur-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 8/

rence to be, it would not have been. Nothing can only result in nothing : and a thing cannot produce its own occurrence ; for then it must act before it is. Hence, also, this immediate de- duction that this power will always produce the same result, when applied under the same circumstances. The occasion of the rise of this notion of power is, no doubt, as Morell has said, with many authors, our consciousness of our own volitions. Now, the sensational psychologists, at the head of whom stands Hume in this particular, deny all this ; and say that our belief that similar causes wHU produce like effects, is only a probable induction of our experience ; (so Mill, adding that this proba- bility rises to a practical certainty, as one induction concuvs with another,) that the mind merely presumes the sequence will be repeated again, because it has been presented so often ; that since the mind is entitled to no idea, save what perception gives her, and the senses perceive only the two terms of the sequence, without tie of pozver between them, the notion of this tie is base- less ; and pozver in causation is naught. Dr. Thomas Brown, while he asserts the intuitive origin of our expectation, that like will produce like, and even argues it with great acuteness, still falls into the latter error, denying that the mind has any ground for a notion of pozver other than " immediate, invariable ante- cedence ;" for this is all perception gives us.

Now, our first remark, in defending the correct doctrine, is, that this argument is of no force to any Power"norPe?cdve7'' except pure sensationalists. When percep- tion furnishes the occasion, a sequence, the reason, by its innate power, furnishes the notion of cause in it. Perception does not show us souls, not even our own ; but rea- son compels us to supply the notion of soul as the subject of perceptions and all other states. Perception does not show us substance in matter, but only a bundle of properties ; reason compels us to supply the notion of substance. And such an argument is peculiarly inconsistent in the mouth of Brown, who asserts that our belief in the recurrence of causative sequences is intuitive ; for it is impossible for the reason to evade the ques- tion : What except power in the antecedent can make the se- quence immediate and invariable ? The something that makes it so, is just our notion of the power.

Having thus rebutted objections to the true view, we return to show that the opposite one is unreasonable from Associadon '"'''^'^ and absurd. The heterodox metaphysicians deny that we intuitively apprehend the fact, that every effect must have its proper cause, and vice versa: and the most plausible ground of denial is to say that this presump- tion grows in our minds by the operation of the associating fac- ulty. It is a law of our minds that they are apt to repeat those sequences of thought, which they have had before in the same juxtaposition; and hence the habit grows up, of thinking of the

88 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

same consequent when we see the same antecedent ; and we naturally learn to expect to see it. But I will show that the be- lief in cause is not the consequence, but the ground and origin of the association. For instance ; man knows perfectly well that certain sequences which recur before him perpetually and regularly, as of light on darkness are not causative ; while he believes that certain others, as of light on the sun's rising, are causative. Now if the associative habit had produced the notion of causation, it would have done it alike in both cases ; for both sequences recurred with exactly the same .uniformity.

I remark, farther, that no experiences of the fact that a given antecedent had produced a given con- Norfrom Experience, ggq^g^t SO far as observed, could logically produce the conviction that it would, and must do so every- where, and in all the future, if it were not sustained by an intuitive recognition of cause and effect in the sequence. The experience of the past only proves the past ; there is no logical tie v/hich entitles us to project it on the future, if we deny the intuitive one. How many experiences of a regular sequence entitle us to carry our expectations into the future? one hundred? 500? What then is the differ- ence between case 499th and case 500th, that the latter alone, when added to the previous past experiences, authorizes us to say that now case 501st, still in the future, must eventuate so and so ? There is no reasonable answer. In truth, experience of a mere sequence, by itself, generates no confidence what- ever in its future recurrence with causative certainty. You may ask, does not a mere empirical induction (inductio simplicis emimeratioiiis. Bacon,) the mere recurrence of an observed se- quence, beget in our minds even a probable expectation of its recurrence in the future ? I answer, yes, in certain sorts of cases; but this probable expectation proceeds from this: We know intuitively that the consequent in this sequence must have some producing cause : whether we have rightly detected it among the seeming antecedents, is not yet proved ; and hence two facts are inferred : this seeming, visible antecedent may be the cause, seeing it has so frequently preceded ; and if it be in- deed the cause, then we are certain it will always be followed by the effect. But we have not yet convinced ourselves that some unseen antecedent may not intervene in each case observed ; and, therefore, our expectation that the seeming antecdent will continue to be followed by the effect, is only probable. It is, therefore, not the number of instances experienced, in which the sequence occurred, which begets our expectation that the sequence must recur in the future ; but it is the probability the mind sees, that the seeming antecedent may be the true one, which begets that expectation. And if that probability rises to a certainty in one or two cases of the observed sequence, it may be as strong as after ten thousand cases.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 89

This was ingeniously (perhaps unintentionally) illustrated by some of the performances of the calculat- Abovf "^''°'' °^ ^^'^ i"g machine constructed by the famous Bab- bage. The machinery could be so adjusted that it would exhibit a series of numbers in an aperture of the dial plate, having a given ru.tioy up to millions. And then without any new adjustment by the maker, it would change the ratio and begin a new series, which it would again continue with perfect regularity until the spectators were weary of watching. Now, if a regular empirical induction, however long continued, could demonstrate anything, it would have done it here. But just when the observer had convinced himself that the first ratio expressed the necessary law of the machine. Presto ! a change ; and a different one supersedes it, without visible cause. This introduces the argument, that it is not a habit of ex- perience which begets the belief in the reg- One Instance Cannot ^jg^j. connection of cause and effect, because,

lorm a habit of Asso- . •, • • r 11 , ,1 r,

ciation. 1^ many cases, it arises in lull strength alter

one trial. The chifd thrusts his finger in flame ; the result is acute pain. He is just as certain from that moment that the same act will produce the same feeling, as after ten thousand trials. It is because his mind compels him to think the primitive judgment, " effect follows cause;" and the sin- gleness of the antecedent enables him to decide that this ante- cedent is the cause. Take another case : A school boy, utterly ig- norant of the explosive qualities of gunpowder, shuts himself in a room with a portion for his boyish experiments. After finding it passive under many experiments, he at length applies fire, and there is an immediate explosion. But at the moment the tongs also fell on it; and hence it may not be yet patent which of the two antecedents (simultaneous) was cause. Heresolves to clear up this doubt by another trial, in which the tongs shall not fall. He applies fire, excluding this time all other antecedent changes, and the explosion follows again. And now., this boy is just as certain that fire will inevitably explode any gunpowder, that is precisely like this, provided the conditions be precisely similar, as a million of experiments could make him. He has ascertained the tie of cause.

In truth, as Dr. Chalmers well says, experience is so far from begetting this belief in the regular efficacy of causation, that its effect is, on the contrary, to limit and correct that belief A little child strikes his spoon on the table ; the effect is noise. At first he expects to be able to produce the same effect by striking it on the bed or carpet, and is vexed at the failure. Experience corrects his expectation ; not by adding anything to his intuitive judgment of like cause, like effect; but by teaching him that in this case, the cause of noise was complex, not single, as he had before supposed, being the impact of the spoon and the elasticity of the thinsf struck.

go SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The subtile and yet simple reasoning, by which Kant (Crit- ick of Pure Reason. Bk. ii, Ch. 2, § 3,) shows an b igumen . ^^^^ absurdity of resolving cause and effect into mere sequence, is worthy of your attention here. He sug- gests two instances : In one I look successively at the different parts of a large house over the way. I perceive first, for in- stance, its front, and then its end. But do I ever think for a moment that the being of the end is successive upon the be- ing of the front ? Never. I know they are simultaneous. In another case, I see a vessel in the river just opposite to me ; and next, I see it below me. The perceptions are no more successive than those of the front and end of the house. But now, can I ever think that the being of the vessel in the two positions is co- etaneous? It is impossible. Why? The only answer is, that the law of the reason has, by intuition, seen effect and depend- ency, in the last pair of successive perceptions, which were not in the first pair. The same vessel has moved; motion is an effect ; its cause must precede it. And this suggests the other member of his argument ; In a causative sequence, the interval of time is wholly inappreciable to the senses ; the cause A and the effect B seem to come together. Now, why is it that the mind always refuses to conceive the matter so as to think B leads A, and will only think that A leads B ? Why do you not think that the loud sound of the blow caused the impact of the hammer, just as of- ten as you do the impact caused the sound ? Surely there is a law of the reason regulating this ! Now that something which determines the order of the sequence, is power.

Last, it is only because our judgment of cause is a priori „, I t "t" B r f ^""^ intuitive, that any process of induction, of Cause, Necessary practical or scientific. Can be valid or de- prior premise of all Ex- monstrative. Bacon shows, what even J. perimental Induction, g^ ^,jj^ admits, that a merely empirical in- duction can never give certain expectation of future re- currence. To reach this, some canon of induction must be ap- plied which will discriminate the post hoc from the propter hoc. Does not Mill himself teach the necessity of such canons ? In- spect any instance of their application to observed sequence-, and you will find that each step proceeds upon the intuitive law of cause, as its postulate. Each step is a syllogism, in which the intuitive truth gives the major premise.

Let us take a simple case falling under what Mill calls his Method by Agreement. (The student will find -\ampe. my assertion true of either of the others.) The

school boy with his parcel of gunpowder, e. g., is searching among the antecedents for the true cause of the phenomenon of explosion, which we will call D. That cause is not detected at first, because he cannot be certain that he procures its occurrence with only a single antecedent. First he constructs an experi- ment, in which he contrives to exclude all antecedents save two,^

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 9 1

A and B. The result D follows; but it is not determined whether A or B, or the two jointly, caused it. He contrives a second experiment, in which B is excluded; but another ante- cedent event C happens along with A, and again D follows. Now we can get the truth. We reason thus : " In the first experiment the cause of D must have been either A or B, or the two com- bined." But why? Because the effect D must have had some immediate, present cause. [But we know that no other imme- diate antecedent effects were present, save A and B.] This is our a priori intuition? Well, in the second experiment, either A or C, or the two combined, must have caused D. Why? The same intuition gives the only answer. But we proved, in the first experiment, C had nothing to do with producing D ; and in the second, B, had nothing to do with producing D ; because C was absent in the first, and B in the second. Then A was the true cause all the time. Why ? Why may not B have been the cause, that time when it was present? Because every effect has its own cause, which is regular, every time it is produced. The premise is still the intuition : " Like causes produce like effects."

It is thus appears, that this intuitive belief is essential be- That which is necessary forehand, to enable us to convert an experi- prior premise cannot be mental induction into a demonstrated general deduction. \d.v^. Could anything more clearly prove that

the original intuition itself cannot have been an experimental induction? It passes human wit to see how a logical process can prove its own premise, when the premise is what proves the process. Yet this absurdity Mill gravely attempts to ex- plain. His solution is, that we may trust the law of cause as a general premise, because it is "an empirical law, co-extensive with all human experience." May we conclude, then, that a man is entitled to argue from the law of cause as a valid gen- eral premise, only after he has acquired "all human experi- ence ? " This simple question dissolves the sophism into thin air. It is experimentally certain that this is not the way in which the mind comes by the belief of the law ; because no man, to the day of his death, acquires all human experience, but only a part, which, relatively to the whole, is exceedingly minute ; and because every man believes the law of cause to be universal, when he begins to acquire experience. The just doc- trine, therefore, is that experimental instances are only the oc- casions upon which the mind's own intuitive power furnishes the self-evident law.

This argument, young gentlemen, has, I think, also given you an illustration of the justice of Arch- xHit '' ^"^^^^^^''^ bishop Whateley's logical doctrine, that in- ductive argument is, after all, but a branch of the syllogistic. The answers made to the questions, What is inductive argument? are, as you know, confused and contra-

■92 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

dictory. Some logicians and many physicists seem to think that the coUigation of similar cases of sequences in considerable numbers, is inductive demonstration. Whereas, I have cited to you Lord Bacon, declaring that if the induction proceed no far- ther than this, it is wholly short of a demonstration, and can but raise a presumption of the existence of a/^wof sequence, which is liable to be overthrown by contrary instances. It is this mis- take, which accounts for the present loose condition of much that claims to be physical science ; where an almost limitless license of framing hypotheses which have probability, prevails, claiming the precious name of " science," for what are, by Ba- con's just rule, but guesses. Many other logicians, seeing the obvious defect of such a definition of inductive demonstration, and yet supposing that they are obliged to find an essential dif- ference between inductive and syllogistic logic, invent I know not what untenable definitions of the former. It is, in fact, only that branch of syllogistic reasoning, which has the intuition, " Like causes, like effects," as its major premise, and which seeks as its conclusion the discrimination of the post hoc from the propter hoc, in seeking the true causative laws of events in nature. You may, if you please, use the word " Indue tio,'' to express the colligation of similar instances of sequence. But inductive demonstration is another matter; a far higher matter, which must come after. It is the logical application of some established canon, which will infallibly detect the immediate causative antecedent of an effect, amidst the apparent ante- cedents. Its value is in this : that when once that discovery is clearly made, even in one instance of sequence, we have a par- ticular laiv of 7iatiire, a principle, which is a constant and per- manent guide of our knowledge and practice. But why does that discovery become the detection of a law of nature ? Be- cause we know that the great truth reigns in nature : " Like causes, like effects" — in other words, because the reason has evolved to itself the intuitive idea of efficient poiver in causes. I have shown you, that the valid application of those canons is, in each step a syllogism; a syllogism, of which the great primar}'' law of causation is first premise.

This exposition shows you that this great law is the very

key of nature. It is, to change the meta- Law of cause is key pj^Q^, the corner-stone of all the sciences of of nature. * ' . ii-itt -c •

nature, material and physical. Hence, 11 its

primary and intuitive character is essential to its validity, as I have argued, in vindicating this thesis we have been defending the very being of all the natural sciences, as well as the citadel of natural theology. Hence it follows that the sensualistic school of metaphysics is as blighting to the interests of true physical science, as of the divine science. The inductive meth- od, in the hands of physicists who grounded it substantially in the metaphysics of common sense, the metaphysics of Turret-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 93:

tin, of Dr. Clarke or of Reid, gave us the splendid results of the Newtonian era. That method, in the hands of Auguste Comte, J. Stuart Mill, and other sensationalists, is giving us the modern corruptions and license of Darwinism and Materialism. The unhallowed touch of this school poisons, not only theology,, which they would fain poison, but the sciences of matter, which they claim as their special care.

Few words are needed to show the intimate relations be- True doctrine of cause ^ween the true doctrine of causation and at basis of Natural The- theology. It IS on his heresy about causa-^ ology. tion, that Hume grounds his famous argu-

ment against miracles. It is on the same error he grounds his objection to the teleological argument for God's existence, that the world is a " singular effect." You saw that the argu- ment just named for God's existence is founded expressly on this great law of cause.

I think we are now prepared to appreciate justly the clam- our of the sensationalists against our postu- Final Cause. lating final causes. I assert that it is only by

postulating thevi, that zee can have any foundation ivhatever for any inductive science. We have seen, that the sole problem of all inductive demonstration is, to discover, among the apparent antecedents in any given sequences of changes, that one, which is efficient cause.

For that being infallibly ascertained, we have a Law of Nature. But how so ? How is it that a re- Essential to all regular ia.tion ascertained in one, or a few cases, may hz assumed as a natural law ? Because our reasons tell us that we are authorized to expect that antecedent which is the true efficient in a given sequence of changes, will be, and must be efficient to produce the same sequent, every time that sequence recurs under precisely the same conditions,, throughout the realm of nature, in all ages and places. [And that belief is a priori and intuitive ; else, as we saw, experience could never make it valid ; and the demonstrations of regular law in nature would be impossible — i. e., science would be im- possible.] But on what condition can that belief be valid to the mind ? If there is nothing truly answering to the a priori idea of power in the antecedent ; if all the mind is entitled to postu- late is mere, invariable sequence ; and if that efficient Power is to be excluded, because not given by sense perception ; is that belief valid ? Obviously not. Again : If Cause is only mate- rial necessity, only a relation in blind, senseless, unknowing, in- voluntary matter, in matter infinitely variable and mutable, is there any possible foundation for their universal and invariable relations in given sequences? Is any intellect authorized a pri- ori, to expect it. Obviously not. It is only when we assume that there is a Creator to the created, that there is an intellect and will ; and that, an immutable one, establishing and govern^

94 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ing these sequences of physical change ; that the mind can find any vahd basis for an expectation of law in them. And that is to say : There is a basis of law in them because, and only be- cause, this ruling intelligence and will has some end in view. We may not know which end ; but we know there is some end, or there would be no Law, his constancy to which is the ground, and the explanation, of the invariability. But that is the doc- trine of Final Cause ! Take it away ; and the inductive logic has no basis under it. You will remember the line " The undevout Astronomer is mad" —

In the same sense we may assert, that the logic of the atheistic physicist is mad. Do we not find, in the prevalence of Posi- tivist and Sensualistic philosophy, in our day, the natural expla- nation of the deplorable license which now corrupts and deforms so much of those Natural Sciences, which, in the hands of sound, theistic physicists like Newton, Davy, Brewster, have run so splendid and beneficent a course?

SYLLABUS

1. Is the Intuitional Reason a different faculty from, and of higher authority than, the Logical Understanding?

Locke's Essay, bk. iv, ch. ii, § 7. Mosheim Eccles. Hist., Cent. 17th, Sec. i, ^ 24. Morell. p. 125. pp. 161-168.

2. To ascertain tlie origin of moral distinctions in our minds, state and refute the Selfish System of Morals, as held by Hobbes, and others.

Jouffroy's Introduc. to Ethiclcs, Lect. ii. Dr. Thos. Brown, Lect. 78, 79. "Cousin, Lc Vrai, &c., Lecon 12th. JMorell, p. 71-75.

3. State and refute the utilitarian theory, (as held by Hume and Bentham.) "Crimes of Philanthrophy," in the Land ive Love, Dec, 1866. Jouffroy, Lect. 13, 14. Brown, Lect. 77, 78. Cousin, Le Vrai, &c., Lecon 13th. Morell, p. 215, &c. Thornwell, Discourses on Truth, i, ii. Bishop Buder's Sermons, lith to 14th. Jonathan Edward's Essay on the Nature of Virtue, ch. i, ii.

4. State and refute Paley's form of the Selfish System.

Palcy's Moral Phil., pp. 24-60. (8vo. Ed.) Jouffroy, ch. 15. Brown, Lect. 79, 80. Alex. Moral Science, ch. i, 2, 3. Cousin, Dii Vrai, dii Bean et dii Bien, as above.

5. State and discuss the Sentimental Theoiy of Dr. Adam Smith. Jouffroy, Lect. 16-18. Brown, Lect. 80-81. Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. i.

CEVERAL analysts of the laws of thought, such as Hobbes ^ and Locke, set out with the fascinating idea of accepting I. Transcendentahsts nothing upon trust, and bringing everything claim priniitive judg- to the test of experimental proof The ments licentiously. miserable sensationalism and materialism to

which this led in the hands of Priestly in England, and Condil- lac in France, taught men to reflect, that unless some primary judgments are allowed to start from, there can be no beginning

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 95

at all : so that some truths must have a prior authority than that of proof. By what faculty, then, are they perceived ? Trans- cendentalists, from Spinoza to the modern, have all answered, by the. intuitive reason : whose sight is direct intellection, whose, conclusions are super-logical, and not, therefore, amenable to logical refutation. The frightful license of dogmatizing to which these schools have proceeded, shows the motive ; it is to enjoy an emancipation from the logical obligations of proving dogmas. Do we say to them, Your assertions do not seem to us true, and we disprove them thus and thus : they reply, "Ah, that is by your plodding, logical understanding; intuitions of the pure reason are not amenable to it ; and if you do not see that our opinion is necessarily true, in spite of objections, it is only be- cause the reason is less developed in you." So the quarrel now stands. It seems to me obvious, therefore, that the next ad- justment and improvement, which the science of mind must receive, should be an adjustment of the relations between in- tuitions and valid deductions.

Now, we might practically bring the transcendentalist to . • J reason by saying, first, that they always

claim the validity of the logical understand- ing, when they find it convenient to use it. [The very evasion above stated is a deduction, by one step, from false premises !] Hence, consistency requires them to bow to it everywhere. Second ; we might apply the established tests of a true intu- ition to their pretended ones, primariness, truth, and univer- sality ; and thus show that, when they profess by the pure rea- son to see dogmas which contradict or transcend the common sense of mankind, they are but making wild hypotheses. But third : I am convinced the radical overthrow of their system will be seen to be, at length, in this position : that the mind sees the truth of a valid deduction by the same faculty, and with equal authority, as an axiom or other first truth — i. e., when major and minor premise have a conclusive relation, and that relation is fairly comprehended, the reason sees the conclusion as immediately, as necessarily, as intuitively, as authoritatively, as when it sees a primary truth.

To my rpind, the simple and sufficient proof of this view of

the logical function is in these questions. a„dniSy?\f\°I?JS;" What is the human intelhgence, but a func-

tion of seeing truth ? As the eye only sees by looking, and all looking is direct and immediate sense intu- ition, how else can the mind see, than by looking — i. e., by ra- tional intuition? Whether the object of bodily sight be imme- diate or reflective, an object or its spectrum, it is. still equally true that the eye only sees by looking — looking immediately; in the latter case the spectrum only is its immediate object. So the mind only sees by looking; and all its looking is intuition; if not immediate, it is not its own ; it is naught. One of the

96 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

earliest, Locke, inconsistently concurs with one of the latest, jNIdGuffey, of the great English-speaking psychologists, in as- serting the view I adopted before consulting either. Locke's proof of it Seems to me perfectly valid. He argues {loco cita- to^ that if the mind's perception of a valid relation between a proposition and its next premise were not immediate, then there must be, between the two, some proposition to mediate our view of it. But between a proposition and its next premise, there can be no other interposed.

But to this view many sound philosophers, even, would

probably object strenuously. That the first jec ions so \e . great mark of intuitive authority, primariness,. was lacking; that the position is utterly overthrownby the wide and various differences of opinion on subjects of deduction ; while in first truths, there must be universal agreement; and that it is inconsistent with the fact that many derived conclu- sions claim no more than a probable evidence. To the first, I reply, the action of the reason in seeing a deduced truth, is not indeed a primary judgment ; but the fact that the truth is seen only by relation to premises, does not make the intellection less immediate and necessary. Just so truly as the first truth is seen to be necessarily true, so the deduced truth is seen to be necessarily true, the premises being as they are. Several of our intuitions are intuitions of relations. Why should it be thought so strange that these intellections by relations should be intuitive? To the second, propositions called axioms have not always commanded universal agreement ; and we are obliged to explain this fact by misapprehension of terms, or ignorance of relations included in the propositions. Well, the same explanation accounts consistently for the differences men have in their deductions ; and the more numerous differences in this class of propositions are accounted for by the facts, that while the axioms are few, deductions are countless ; and in any one there are more terms, because more propositions liable to mis- conception. But I do assert that, in a valid syllogism, if the major and minor are known to be true, and the terms are all fairly comprehended, the belief of the conclusion by the hearer is as inevitable, as necessary, as univers^Il, as when an axiom is stated. Third ; though in many deductions the evi- dence is but probable, the fact that there is probable evidence, may be as necessarily admitted, as in an intuitive and positive truth.

We now approach, young gentlemen, that great class of

our judgments which are of supreme impor- Mm-;iJuclS'en?s'. ""■ ^ance in theology, as in_ practical life-the

class known as our moral judgments. Lvery sane man is conscious of acts of soul, which pronounce certain rational agents right or wrong in certain acts. With these right or wrong acts our souls unavoidably conjoin certain

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 97

notions and feelings of obligation, merit, demerit, approbation or disapprobation, and desert of reward or penalty. It is this peculiar class of mental states which constitutes the subject of the science of ethicks, or morals. All questions as to the .nature and validity of moral judgments run into the radical question, as to their origin. Are they the results of a funda- mental and intuitive law of reason? Or are they artificial or factitious of some other natural principles developed into a form only apparently peculiar, by habit, association, or train- ing ? In answering this all-important question, I shall pursue this method, to set aside the various false analyses, until we reach the true one.

The Selfish System, presenting itself in many varied forms from Hobbes (natural desire of enjoyment ys em. ^^^jy motive) through Mandeville (the desire of being applauded is the moral motive) down to Paley, has always this characteristic : it resolves our idea of virtue into self-interest. Its most refined form, perhaps, is that which says, since acts of benevolence, sympathy, justice, are found to be attended with an immediate inward pleasure, (self-approbation,) that pleasure is the motive of our moral acts. We discuss several phases together.

I remark, that on the selfish system, the notion of right, Refuted. 1st. By in- ^uty, obligation, free-agency, could never tuitive Beliefs of Right have arisen in the mind, and have no relev- and Free-agency. ancy or meaning. Let man frame the

proposition.: " That which furthers self-interest is right;" the very employment of the word right betrays the fact that the mind recognizes a standard other than that of self- interest. And any analysis of the notion shows that it is utterly violated and falsified, when made identical with self- interest. Thus, Hobbes says, each man's natural right is to pursue his own natural self-interest supremely. But according to his own showing, this " right " in A implies no corresponding duty in him, and no obligation in his neighbour, B, to respect it, and no recognition on the part of any other. Any body has a " right " to prevent A from having his "right." Queer right this !

If interest is the whole motive, then, when the question arises, whether I shall do, or omit a certain action, you cannot consistently expect me to consider anything but this : whether or not the doing of it will promote my own advantage, and that, in the form I happen to prefer. If I say, " This result will most gratify me," the argument is at an end; my proposed act is, for me, right ; there is no longer any standard of uniform moral distinction. The same remark shows that the judgment of obligation to a given act is then baseless. Attempt to apply any of those arguments, by which Epicureanism attempts to interpose an "ought not" between a man and any natural in-

7*

98 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

dulgence ; (as this : " This sensual pleasure will indeed promote animal, but hinder intellectual pleasure, which is higher. And since pleasure is the rational chief good, you should prefer the more to the less;") the reply is : "Animal joys are to me larger than intellectual ;" and the ground of obligation is gone. If no indulgence is less or more virtuous than any other, then no possible argument of obligation can be constructed, in the face of an existing preference, for refraining from any. If the sen- sualistic psychology is true, from which the selfish schemes proceed, then desire for natural good, which they make the only moral motive, is a passive affection of the soul. It is no more voluntary, when the object of desire is presented, than is pain when you are struck, or a chill when you are deluged with cold water. Where, now, is that free-agency which, we intui- tively feel, is rudimental to all moral action and responsibility ? Man is no longer Self-directed by subjective, rational motives, but drawn hither and thither like a puppet, by external forces. But if not a free, he cannot be a moral agent. Of course, also, there is no longer any basis for any judgment of merit or demerit in acts, or any moral obligation to punishment. Pen- alties become the mere expedients of the stronger for protecting their own selfishness. And as this is as true of the future, all religious sanctions are at an end!

This theory teaches that this selfish pleasure apprehended 2d. From Piece- ^V ^^^^ mind, in acquiring an object, must al- dence of Intuitive De- ways be the motive for seeking it. The sire to Calculation. analysis is false ; desire must be instinctive ;

otherwise man could not have his first volition till after the voli- tion had put him on the way of experiencing the pleasant result of the fruition ! Many desires are obviously instinctive ; e. g., curiosity. Now, since the self-pleasing cannot be the original element of the desire, it cannot be proved that this is our element of rightness, in classifying our desires. See now, how this analysis would assign the effect as the cause of its own cause. A does a disinterested act. The conciousness of hav- ing done disinterestedly gives A an inward pleasure. This after-pleasure, proceeding from the consciousness that the act was unselfish, prompted to the act ! Thus the effect caused its own cause ! The absurdity of the scheme is further proved by this : If the fact that a disinterested act results in inward satis- faction to him who did it, proves that act selfish ; then the fact that a selfish act usually results in inward pain to him who perpetrates it, proves that act to have been a disinterested one in motive.

If the selfish theory of action were true, the adaptation of

3rd. From intuitive another person's conduct to confer personal

Difference of advan- advantage on US, should be synonymous with

tage and merit. merit in our eyes. The villain who shared

'vith us the reward of his misdeeds, to bribe us to aid or ap-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 99

plaud him, would evoke the same sentiment of gratitude, as the mother who blessed us with her virtuous self-sacrifice ; and there would be no generic difference between the hollow flat- tery of the courtier for the monster on whose bounty he fattened, and the approbatioo of the virtuous for patriotism or benevolence.

If our notion of good acts is nothing but a generalization

4th. From Vividness ^^ ^^^^ i^^^. of acts promotive of our self- of Unsophisticated interest, he who has most experimental Moral Sentiments. knowledge of human affairs (i. e., he who is

most hackneyed in this world's ways,) must have the clearest and strongest apprehensions of moral distinctions ; because he would most clearly apprehend this tendency of actions. He who was wholly inexperienced, could have no moral distinctions. Is this so ? Do we not find the most unsophisticated have the most vivid moral sympathies ? The ignorant child in the nur- sery more than the hackneyed man of experience ?

But the crowning absurdity of the theory appears here ;

ah From Conscious- that our consciousness always teaches us, that ness. No Merit where the pleasure we have in well-doing depends Self reigns. wholly upon our feeling that the virtuous

act had no reference to self; and the moment we feel that self- pleasing was our prime motive, we feel that our moral pleasure therein is wholly marred. Indeed, the best and the sufficient . argument against this miserable theory would, perhaps, be the instinctive loathing and denial uttered against it by every man's soul, who is rightly constituted. The honest man knows, by his immediate consciousness, that when he does right, selfish- ness is not his motive ; and that if it were, he would be utterly self-condemned. As Cousin nervously remarks : Our con- sciousness tells us, that the approbation we feel for disinterested virtue is wholly disinterested, and it is impossible for us to feel it unless we feel that the agent for whom we feel it was disin- terested in this act. Thus, a thousand things in the acts, the language, and the consciousnesses of men are utterly irrecon- cilable with this hateful analysis, and show it to be as unphilo- sophical as degrading. Our crowning objection is found in its effect on our view of the divine character. That which is man's finite virtue must be conceived infinite, as constituting the virtue of God, (if there is a God.) His holiness must be only sove- reign self-interest !

In the next place, I group together three theories of the nature of virtue, which really amount to the ■ick"" ^^^^'''"■'^'' ^*" same ; that of David Hume, who taught that an act is apprehended by us as virtuous, because it is seen to be useful -to mankind ; that of Jeremy Bentham, who taught that whatever conduct is conducive to the greatest good of the greatest number, is right ; and that of some New England divines and philosophers, who teach that

lOO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

virtue consists in benevolence. The latter is practically synon- ymous with the two former. For the practical expression of benevolence is beneficence. This theory of virtue is a natural off-shoot of Jonathan Edwards' theory of virtue. This great and good man would probably be shocked to have his specula- tion, as to " the nature of true virtue," classed with those of the infidel, utilitarian school. But the historical development of it since his death, proves the justice of the charge. It is, more- over, so interesting an exposition of the unavoidable tenden- cies of the " Benevolence Theory," and has so important relations to existing errors in theology, that I must ask you to pause a moment to consider Edwards' view.

As is suggested by the Rev'd Ro. Hall, Edwards was

probably impelled to this piece of false anal-

^ Edwards' Theory of ^.^^^^ ^^ j^jg j^^^ ^f simplifying. His desire

was to unify the ultimate principles of the rational spirit, as much as possible. Hence, instead of regard- ing virtuous acts and states of soul as an ultimate and inde- pendent category, he teaches that they all most essentially consist in " Benevolence to Being in General," meaning, of course, rational being, or, " love to being in general." And this love, which is the essence of all virtue, he expressly defines as the love of benevolence only, as distinct from the love of moral complacency. This is essential to his system ; for, as he himself argues, the love of moral complacency must imply moral beauty in its object. The perception of moral beauty generates the love which is moral complacency. If the love which constitutes moral beauty were that moral complacency, Edwards argues that we should make a thing its own parent. Of this, more anon. He then proceeds : " The first object of virtuous benevolence is Being, simply considered ;" and hence : " Being in general is its object." That to which its ultimate propensity tends is "the highest good of being in general." From this conclusion, Edwards draws this corollary : There may be a benevolence towards a particular Being, which is virtuous, because that particular Being is a part of the aggre- gate, general being ; but the affection is virtuous, only provided it consists with the " highest good of being in general." Again : That being who has the greatest quantum of existence must attract the largest share of this benevolence. Hence, we must love God more than all creatures, because He is infinite in the dimensions of His existence ; and we ought, among creatures, to love a great and good man proportionably more than one less able and full of being. The grounds of proof on which Edwards seems to rest his conclusion are these : That every judgment of beauty, of every kind, is analysable into a percep- tion of order and harmony ; but the most beautiful and lofty of all rational harmonies is this concent or benevolence of an in- telligent Being to all like Being : That the Scriptures say

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. lOI

" God is love ;" and " Love is the fulfilling of the whole law " between man and his neighbour : And that this theoty explains so well the superior claims of God to our love, over creatures' claims to our love.

The transition between this plausible, but most sophistical

speculation, and the utilitarian scheme, and Ethfcf ' '° Utihtanan ^^^-^^ ^^ expediency, which underlie the New

England Theology, of our day, is found in the writings of Dr. Samuel Hopkins, (and " the younger Ed- wards.") In their hands, " Love to Being in General," became simply the affection of benevolence ; and the theor}^ became this : That benevolence is all virtue, and all virtue is benevo- lence. I have already disclosed the affinity of this theory to the utilitarian, by the simple remark, that beneficence is the practical expression of benevolence. Hence, when he who has defined virtue as benevolence, comes to treat of virtue as a practical principle, he makes nothing else of it than Jeremy Bentham's "greatest good of the greatest number." We shall detect Dr. Hopkins adopting this, and even the most thoroughly selfish theory of virtue, in carrying out his benevolence-scheme, with an amusing candour, simplicity and inconsistency.

Proceeding to the refutation of Edwards' scheme, I begin -

with his Scriptures. The same logic which

infers it from the expression, " God is love," would infer from the text, " God is light," that He is nothing but pure intelligence ; and from the text, " Our God is a con- suming fire," that He is nothing but vindicatory justice. All Scriptures must be interpreted consistently. Neither can we overstrain the declarations of our Saviour and the apostle, that " love fulfils the whole law " between man and man, into the theory that benevolence is the whole essence of virtue. The proposition of the Scripture contains a beautiful practical fact: that the virtue of love (which, in Scripture nomenclature, in- cludes far more than benevolence) prompts to all other virtues. I. exclude the overstrained inference by simply referring to the other passages of Scripture, which expressly name other dis- tinguishable virtues in addition to love. " Now abideth faith, hope, love : these three : but the greatest of these is love." — I Cor. xiii : 13. "Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." — 2 Pet. i : $> ^^ When the Scriptures declare love to God the great Command- ment, they mean a very different thing from Edwards' benevo- lence to Being; "a propensity to its highest good." The supreme object of holy love in the Scriptures is always God's holiness. The affection is as distinct from mere benevolence, as adoration from kindness. The love of the Scriptures, in which all man's holiness centres, is the attraction of the whole

I02 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

soul, in all its active principles, towards all that is pure and

venerable, and righteous and true, as well as good, in the divine

character.

To Edwards' speculative grounds, I reply, 1st. His ground-

. ing of moral virtue in a harmony or order

Moral Beauty Unique. -j- i.^. ^ • i-j . c

■' '■ perceived, is utterly invalid as a support of

his theory, unless he holds that aesthetic beauty, logical pro- priety and moral praiseworthiness, are all genericall}' the same beauty, only differing in degree. For if not, the order and harmony whose perception gives the feeling of virtuousness, are a different kind; and Edwards, as much as I, is bound to answer the question : In what does moral beauty differ from the sesthetic and the logical ? I can answer consistently : In conformity to a peculiar, original intuition, that of conscience. Indeed, the fact that every sane mind intuitively perceives that difference, is, of itself, a sufficient refutation of Edwards' and of every other false analysis of the moral sentiment.

We have seen that Edwards regards the love of benevo- „ , , , , lence, not the love of moral complacency, as

Ldwards parodox. ,, . r-, iti'i

the primary essence oi virtue : and 1 showed you the argument which led him to this consistent conclusion. The love of complacency, then, is love to a rational agent on account of his love of benevolence ; and the former is not primarily of the essence of virtue. That is : it is not virtuous to love virtue ! It is true that on a subsequent page, he retracts this absurdity ; availing himself virtually of a theory of sym- pathy between the virtuous (or benevolent) agent and the approving spectator, to argue what he had before disproved. This is but the anticipation of the vicious analysis of Adam Smith. By a parallel process, Edwards' principles should lead him to conclude that disinterested gratitude is not virtuous. Saith he, "the first benevolence cannot be gratitude." True;, for this first benevolence must regard its object simply as being,, not as beneficent. Hence, for me to love a being because he has been a benefactor to me, is not virtue ! Edwards, in a sub- sequent chapter, resolves gratitude into self-love, but he is not thereby designing to depreciate the affection of gratitude, for in the same chapter he analyses the judgments and emotions of conscience into the same self-love !

We have seen that Edwards makes the essence of virtue to

be " love to being in general." Another fatal th'oiIjSrof'vKue?" Objection to this is, that it assigns us as the

object of every virtuous affection, a mere abstraction, a general idea. Whereas, if consciousness tells you anything clearly of your moral sentiments, it is that their objects must be personal. Only a person can oblige us to a duty. Only a person can be the object of a right. Pantheism, as we saw, abolishes morality by obliterating the personality of God. Edwards' speculation would do it as effectually, in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. IO3

another way. Again, says Edwards, love to a particular being is compatible with the definition of virtue as consisting in " love to being in general," provided the particular affection is con- sistent with the highest good of being in general. But I object again ; this proviso is one which cannot be practically ascer- tained, by ordinary moral agents, in one of ten thousand cases in which they are called to act morally towards a particular object. The motive of the peasant-mother may be virtuous, when she forsakes the industrial avocation which she was pursuing, promotive of the public good, to nurse her own sick and dying child, provided she has successfully calculated the preponderance of the resultant general benefit of the nursing over the industry! I object farther, that this theory might lead a man to the breach of a nearer, and therefore more obligatory duty, for the sake of one remoter, and therefore less obligatory. The son would be bound to rescue a great and gifted stranger from fire or water, in preference to his own father, because the great man presented to his love a greater qjiantiini of existence. I object again; that on Edwards' theory it might be impos- sible to explain how it is our duty to honor a dead man for his virtues. He is beyond the reach of our benevolence ; he can be neither benefited nor pleased by our plaudits. And espec- ially is it impossible, on this theor>% to include God directly in our virtuous affections. Remember, the essence of all virtue with him is that simple love of benevolence, whose propension is to promote the highest good of being in general. But God is infinitely blessed ; His good cannot be promoted by creatures. Does this not obviously exempt Him from our benevolence ? Edwards answers this laboriously, by pleading that our homage can promote God's declarative glory ; the Scriptures exhort us to love, adore and praise Him. This is true, but the Scriptures ground these duties of love and adoration expressly upon God's moral perfections. It is these, not existence, which constitute Him the object of our moral homage This fact alone overthrows Edwards' whole speculation.

All benevolence-schemes tacitly assume the validity of the a priori moral intuition, with which they ass^umer'^^^'"^^'''"' propose to dispense. For, suppose an advo- cate of the sensual selfish system to demand of their advocates : " Why is it my duty to make the greatest good of the greatest number my chief end, instead of my own personal good?" The respondent could find no answer, with- out resorting to the original distinction of advantage from right, and the obligation to the latter.

The most mischievous part of Edwards' scheme I conceive

to be, his derivation of the judgments and

leme s s . gj^otions of conscience itself, from general

self-love. As that direct and simple love of benevolence, which

is the pure essence of virtue, is concent and harmony with

I04 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

general being, as being ; so self-love, according to Edwards, is a propension towards the concent and harmony or unity of one's own being. The former principle tends to unite the individual with general Being. Hence the consciousness of an affection tending to break that benevolent unison, disunites the man's own being within itself Self-love then produces the judgment and pain of remorse ; for this pain is nothing but the sense of the breach of that self-unity, which is self-love's main object. Thus it follows that the sentiments of conscience, (like gratitude) are only of secondary rank in ethics ! By this ill-starred logical jugglery is that imperial faculty degraded, whose intuitions and affections are the very spring-head of all the ethical acts of the human soul, and made an inferior consequence of the virtuous principle ; a consequence of its defect, a modification of self- love. It would follow, of course, that the perfect man might be too virtuous to have any conscience at all. It is simpler reasoning still, to conclude as many of Edwards' followers have done, from his premises; that, as simple benevolence is virtue, self-love is sin. [And thus would come about that marvelous interpretation, which is one of the most recent triumphs of the New England theology; when in expounding Gen. 3: 22, it tells us that Adam and Eve acquired a knowledge of moral distinc- tions only by their fall. For, conscience is a development of the principle of self-love, as Edwards teaches ; and self-love is the essence of sin, as the moderns say : whence it follows, that man acquires his moral nature only by his immorality.

These fatuous absurdities Edwards was too shrewd to adopt.

He does not teach, as his premises should

Sin and self-love yet ^^^^^ taught him, that self-love is sin. Indeed,

not identical. . o , . ' . , , '

m a part 01 his treatise, he adopts the correct analysis of Bp. Butler, as to this affection. Inform yourselves of that analysis in his sermons, from the nth to the 14th, He there teaches us, with his customary profound simplicity, the true testimony of our consciousness ; That benevolence and self-love are in fact distinguishable, but not opposite affections of the soul (as is so often popularly assumed) ; That instead of being universally opposed, they often co-operate as motives to the same act ; That the act thus educed may be either virtuous or vicious, according to its conditions ; That both benevolence and self-love are so far in the same moral categories, that noto- riously, some acts of simple self-love, (as when a man directly seeks his own calculated but lawful, or obligatory personal good) and many acts of benevolence are virtuous ; and that many acts of self-love (as when a man prefers his own mis- chievous animal pleasure), and many acts of disinterestedness (as when a man deliberately injures himself for the sake of revenge), are vicious. From these clear statements it follows obviously, that the benevolent cannot be exalted into the universal essence of virtue, nor the selfish into that of sin.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Gen. 3: 22

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. IO5

These theories derive all the plausibility of their sophistries What has suggested from three facts. It has been so often said, these B ene vol en ce that "Honesty is the best policy," that men schemes. come to think the goodness of the policy is

what makes it honest ; To promote utility, or, in other words, to do acts of beneficence to mankind, is, in a multitude of cases, right and praiseworthy ; The duties of benevolence are duties, and a very extensive class thereof; but not, therefore, exhaustive of all duties. Once more, in the business of legis- lation, the expedient is very much the guide ; and crimes are punished chiefly in proportion to their tendency to injure the well-doing of society. This might easily deceive one who, like Bentham, was far more of a legislator than philosopher, to sup- pose that he had found, in the beneficence of acts, the essential element of their virture. He forgets that human laws propose as their proximate end only the protection of human well-being in this world ; and not the accurate final apportionment of merits. This is God's function alone.

The utilitarian schemes of ethics profess to stand in

,^ , . ^ contrast to the selfish, because they propose 1st. It IS selfish, m fact. . >i ir i j r i.i 1 \ J_^^

not the selfish good 01 the agent, but the

well-being of mankind, as the element and -test of virtue. But they would really involve, as Jouffroy argues, the vice of the selfish systems, if consistently carried out to their last result. For when the question is raised, " Why do men come to regard the utile as the right?" the answer must be, because well-being (natural enjoyment) is the properest end of man. But thence it must follow, that desire of natural good is man's properest motive of action. Thus the moral motive is as effectually left out of the analysis as by Hobbes himself; and the same absurd psychology is assumed, which makes desire for natural good the result of experienced good, whereas the desire must act first, or the good would never have come to be experienced. But more ; if desire for natural good is man's properest motive of action, it must follow, that his own personal good must always be the properest end of moral action ; because this must always be the nearest, most immediate object of the natural desire. These schemes make aggregate humanity the supreme object of moral action ; the true God. But the individ- ual agent is a part of that aggregate ; a part of his own God ! And as he is the most attainable part — the only part for whose natural welfare he can labour effectually — I see not how the practical conclusion is to be avoided ; that he is his own prop- erest supreme end. Thus we are led back to the vilest results of the selfish system ; and such, experience teaches us, is the practical tendency. While the utilitarian schemes profess great beneficence, they make their votaries supremely politic and selfish.

But farther ; the scheme does not correctly state the facts

I06 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of our consciousness. The mind does not

./.\ ^S'Kh^tri^n' feel that obhgation to an act is always its scious rule oi obligation. ... ° , - , -^ ,

mere utility or beneficence, nor that the merit of the agent arises out of the advantage his act effects. How often, for instance, do questions arise, as to the obligation of speaking truth ; where, if utility were the element of obli- gation, none would be felt ; yet the mind would feel most guilty, had falsehood been uttered in the case. Again ; were utility the element of virtue, the rightness or wrongness of an act would only be apprehended so far as experience had given us knowledge as to the beneficence or mischievousness of its effects. Is this so ? Does not the conscience lash us for secret sins which leave no loss of reputation, health, or capacity behind them ; and lash us all the more promptly and keenly, as we are inexperienced of crime and its wretched consequences? Far- ther ; were this theory true, all truly useful things should affect us with similar sentiments of moral approbation, a convenient bureau, or good milch cow, as truly as a faithful friend, or a benevolent rescuer. Does Hume attempt to escape by saying that it is the rational and voluntary useful act which affects us with the sentiment of approbation ? Then, we reply, he has given up the case ; for evidently the morality of the act is not in its utility, but in its rational motive. Once more ; if utility is the sole element of virtue, then the degree of utility should also be the measure of virtuous merit. We should alwa}-s feel those acts to be most meritorious which were most conducive to natu- ral good. But do we ? e. g. Which ennobles Daniel most in our eyes : the heroism which refused to bow his conscience to an impious prohibition of his king, when the penalty was the lions' den, or the diligence which dispensed order and prosperity over one hundred and twenty provinces ? And the extravagant conclusions of Godwin must be accepted — that duties must be graded by us in proportion to the public importance of the person who was their object; so that it might be the son's duty to see his own father drown, in order to save some more valu- able life, who is a stranger to him.

Were the utilitarian scheme true, it might be in some cases ut- T,d. If so we mio-ht terly impossible to convince a man that it was "do evil that good may immoral to " do evil that good might come." '^°'"'^-" If the consequences of the evil act, so far as

foreseen by his mind, seemed beneficial, it would be right to do it. Nor could the claims of retributive justice in many cases be substantiated; the criminal who gave, by his penitence, suf- ficient guarantee that he would offend no more, could not be made, without immorality, to pay his debt of guilt. And above all, eternal retributions would be utterly indefensible in a God of infinite wisdom and power. How can they advantage the universe^ including the sufferers, as much as their pardon and thorough conversion would benefit them, without injuring the rest?

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. lO/

Paley's type of the Selfish System may be said to be

, ^ , , , equally perspicuous and false. That such a

4th. Paley s scheme. • c • ^ i i • • i •

^ specimen oi impotency and sophism m phi-

losophy should come from a mind capable of so much justice and perspicuity of reasoning, as he has exhibited in the experi- mental field of Natural Theology, is one of the most curious facts in the history of opinion. I shall first attempt to rebut the objections which he insinuates against the originality of moral perceptions, and then criticise his own theory.

. He first proposes to test the question, whether such dis- tinctions are originally and intuitively per- mo'^Ifji^gmS.^''^"^ ceived, by supposing a case of what we call odious filial treachery, stated to a mind per- fectly untutored by human associations, example, and teaching; and asking us whether he would immediately feel its vileness, with us. We answer, of course. No. But to show how ab- surdly preposterous the test is, we need not, with Dr. Alex- ander, dwell on the complexity of the moral problem involved. The simple answer is, that such a mind would not have the moral sentiment, because he would not comprehend the relations out of which the violated obligations grew, nor the very words used, to state them. In no proper sense could the untutored mind be said to see the case. Now, what a paltry trick is it, to argue that a mind has not a power of comparison, because it cannot compare objects which it does not behold at all ?

Paley insinuates (none of his objections to moral intuitions are stated boldly) that our notions of the

ass'^So? '^'^''' ^° '"o^^^ ^^y ^^^ ^^ accounted for by associ- ation and imitation. Thus, " having noticed that certain actions produced, or tended to produce, good con- sequences, whenever those actions are spoken of, they suggest, by the law of association, the pleasing idea of the good they are wont to produce. What association begins, imitation strengthens ; this habit of connecting a feeling of pleasure with classes of acts is confirmed by similar habits of thought and feeling around us, and we dub it the sentiment of moral appro- bation." (Borrowed from Hume.) Now, this analysis is shown to be worthless in this one word. The law of association does not transmute, but only reproduces, the mental states connected by it. How, then, can the feeling of pleasure, which begins from a perceived tendency in a class of acts to promote natura' good, he changed by association into the pleasure of moral approbation ? They are distinct enough at first. Again : How, on this scheme, could men ever come to have pain of conscience at sins which are naturally pleasurable, and attended with no m.ore direct natural ill? And how could the fact ever be explained, that we often have the sentiment of remorse for doing something in comphance with general associations and imitation ?

I08 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Another class of objections is drawn from the facts that Obiects, that they ^^^ ^^"^^ "° innate ideas of the abstract ele- are not referable to any ment of moral right; and that moralists, shnpler type. though asserting the instinctive origin of

moral perceptions, have never been able to point to any one type, or simple abstract element, (as veracity, &c.,) into which all moral acts might be resolved. After our criticism of Locke, no farther answer will be needed to the first objection. The second, when examined, will be found to be a bald begging of the question. The question is, whether the Tightness of acts is an original perception of the human reason. Now, if it be, it will of course follow that it cannot be referred to some more general type of perception. Can this general idea, a truth, be analysed ? Why not ? Because it is already simple and pri- mary. Who dreams of arguing now that the human reason has no original capacity of perceiving truth in propositions, because it has no more general and abstract type, into which the sorts of truth in different classes of propositions may be referred ? So, of the idea of rightness.

Paley also borrows the common argument of objectors, from the wide variety, and even contrariety And vaua e, ^£- ^^^^0.1 opinions in different ages and na-

tions. In one nation, filial duty is supposed to consist in nursing an aged parent ; in another land, in eating him, &c., &c. The answers are, that no one ever pretended any human faculty was perfect in its actings, however original. Habit and association, example, passion, have great influence in perverting any faculty. Next, as justly remarked by Dr. Alexander, many of the sup- posed cases of contrariety of moral judgments are fully ex- plained by the fact, that the dictate of conscience, right in the general, is perverted by some error or ignorance of the under- standing. The Christian mother feels it her duty to cherish the life of her infant ; the Hindoo to drown hers in Holy Ganges ! True. Yet both act on the dictate of conscience— that a mother should seek the highest good of her infant. The Hindoo has been taught by her false creed, to believe that she does this by transferring it in childhood to heaven. Once more; it is a most erroneous conclusion to infer that, because men perform, in some countries, what are here regarded as odious vices, with seeming indifference and publicity, therefore their moral sentiments about them do not agree with ours. An educated Hindoo will lie for a penny, and, when detected, laugh at it as smart. A Hot- tentot woman will seem shameless in her lewdness. Yet we are informed that the Hindoo reverences and admires the truthful- ness of a Christianized Briton ; and that the poor Hottentot scorns the unchaste European missionary, just as any female here would. The amount of the case is, that conscience may be greatly stupefied or drowned by evil circumstances ; but her general dictates, so far as heard, are infallibly uniform.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. IO9

Paley, having succeeded, to his own satisfaction, in proving

that there is no sufficient evidence of moral duty?! c! '^'^"'"°" °^ intuitions existing in the human soul, gives

his own definition. " Virtue is doing good to mankind, according to the will of God, for the sake of everlast- ing happiness." And moral obligation, he defines, as nothing else than a forcible motive arising out of a command of another. That this scheme should ever have seemed plausible to Chris- tians, can only be accounted for by the fact that we intuitively feel, when a God is properly apprehended, that His will is a per- fect rule of right ; and that it is moral to do all His commands. But when we raise the question, why ? the answer is, because His will, like His character, is holy. To do His will, then, is not obligatory merely because an Almighty has commanded it;, but He has commanded it because it is obligatory. The dis- tinction of right and wrong is intrinsic.

The objections to Paley's system are patent. He himself

raises the question, wherein virtue, on his Objections. The sys- definition, differs from a prudent self-love tem a seliish one. . ii- tt- -ii

m temporal thmgs. His answer is, the latter

has regard only to this life ; the former considers also future immortal well-being. Brown well observes of this, that it is but a more odious refinement upon the selfish system; defiling man's very piety, by making it a selfish trafficking for personal advantage with God, and fostering a more gigantic moral egotism, insomuch as immortality is longer than mortal life. All the objections leveled against the selfish system by me, apply, therefore, justly here. This scheme of Paley is equally false to our consciousness, which tells us that when we act, in all relative duties, with least reference to self, then we are most praise- worthy.

But we may add, more especially, that on Paley's scheme

of obligation, it is hard to see how he could Force may iustify j 1.1^.^.1 u •

J .» J / deny that there may be, in some cases, as

real a moral obligation to do wrong, as to do right. A company of violent men overpower me, and command me, on pain of instant death, to burn down my neighbor's dwelling. Here is "a forcible motive arising from the com- mand of another." Why does it not constitute a moral obliga- tion to the crime ? Paley would reply, because God commands me not to burn it, on pain of eternal death ; and this obligation destroys the other, because the motive is vastly more forcible. It seems, then, that in God's case, it is His might which makes- His right.

Once more. On Paley's scheme, there could be no morality nor moral obligation, where there is no revel- No obligation with- ^^i^^ fj.Qj^^ Qq^ because neither the rule,

out Revelation. And . ' ,. . r • •

no virtue in God. nor motive, nor obligation of virtue exists.

They do not exist indeed, Paley might reply,.

sm.

no SYLLABUS AND NOTES

in the form of a revealed theology ; but they are there in the teachings and evidences of Natural Theology. " The heathen which have not the law are a law unto themselves, their con- sciences," &c. But if there are no authoritative intuitions given by God to man's soul, of moral distinctions, then Natural Theology has no sufficient argument whatever to prove that, God is a moral being, or that He wills us to perform moral acts. Look and see. And, in fine : What can God's morality be ; since there is no will of a higher being to regulate His acts, and no being greater than He to hold out the motive of eternal rewards for obeying !

The ingenious scheme of Dr. Adam Smith, Theory of Mor.

Sents., may be seen verv perspicuousl}' thloV'^'"' "^ ^™"^''' unfolded in Jouffroy. This scheme is by no

means so mischievous and degrading as that of Hobbes, Hume or Paley. But it is incorrect. Its funda- mental defect is, that in each step it assumes the prior existence of the moral sentiment, in order to account for it. For instance, it says : We feel approbation for an act, when we experience a sympathetic emotion with the sentiments in the agent which prompted it. But sympathy only reproduces the same emotion ; it does not transmute it ; so that unless the producing sentiment in the agent were moral, it could not, by sympathy, generate a moral sentiment in us. It supposes conscience comes thus : We imagine an ideal man contemplating our act, conceive the kind of sentiments he feels for us, and then sympathize there- with. But how do we determine the sentiments of this ideal man looking at our act? He is but a projection of our own moral sentiments. So, in each step. Dr. S. has to assume the phenomenon, as already produced ; for the production of which he would account. Another fatal objection to Dr. Smith's scheme is, that the sympathetic affection in the beholder is always fainter than the direct sentiment in the object beheld. But conscience visits upon us stronger affections than are awakened by beholding the moral acts of another, and approv- ing or blaming them. The sentiments of conscience should, according to Dr. Smith, be feebler; for they are the reflection of a reflection.

SYLLABUS

1. What the true theory of the moral Distinction and Obhgation ? Compare it with that of Joiiffroy. Is the moral Distinction seen by the Reason, or by a distinct faculty ?

Bp. Butler's Sermons, viz: Preface and Sermon on Rom. xii : 4, 5. Cousin, Le Vrai, Le Bean, Le Bieit, Lecon 14th. Alexander's iMoral Science, ch. 2-7, inclus., and ch. 10. Jouffroy, Introduc. to Ethics, Lect. i to 3. Thornwell, Discourses on Truth, i, ii.

2. Explain the moral Emotion involved widi the moral judgment, and in con- nection criticize the schemes of Hutcheson and Brown.

Cousin as above. Alex. Mor. Sc, ch. 6 to II. Dr. Thos. Brown, Lect. 81, 82. Jouffroy, Lect 19, 20.

3. State the true doctrine of the supremacy and authority of conscience Butler's Sermon on Rom. ii : 14. Alexander, ch. 8, 9.

4. What qualities are necessary to moral agency and responsibility ? Alexander, ch. 13, 14. Dr. Thos. Brown, Lect. 73.

A RE moral distinctions intrinsic ; and are they intuitively

'^^ perceived ? We have now passed in review all the several

theories which answer, no ; and found them

I. Moral Judgments untenable. Hence, alone, we derive a strong

are mtuitive. , , ... , ' ^, ,. . ,, ^ °

probability that the affirmative is the true

answer; e. g. All the chemists endeavour in vain to analyse a given material substance into some other known one ; but fail. It is, therefore, assumed to be simple and original.

We must assume this of the moral sentiment; or else it is unintelligible how mankind ever became possessed of the moral idea. For every original and simple idea, whether sensitive or rational, with which our souls are furnished, we find an appro- priate original power; and without this the idea could never have been entertained by man. Had man no eyes, he would have never had ideas of light and colours ; no ear, he could never have had the idea of melody ; no taste, he would forever have lacked the idea of beauty. So, if the idea of rightness in acts is not identical with that of truth, nor utility, nor benevo- lence, nor self-love, nor love of applause, nor sympathetic harmony, nor any other original sentiment ; it must be received directly by an original moral power in the soul. To this, in the second place, consciousness testifies : the man who calmly and fully investigates his own mental processes, will perceive that his view and feehng of the rightness of some acts arise imme- diately in his mind; without any medium, except the comprehension of the real relations of the act; that their rise is unavoidable ; and that their failure to rise would be immediately and necessarily apprehended by all, as a fundamental defect of his soul. There is, indeed, a great diversity in the estimation of the more complex details of moral questions. And man s

III 112 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

intuition of those distinctions is often disturbed by three causes, well stated by Dr. Brown — complexity of elements, habits of association, and prevalent passion. But, allowing for these, there is just the universal and immediate agreement in all sane human minds, which we expect to find in the acceptance of necessary first truths. In the fundamental and simple ideas of morals, men are agreed. And in the case of any other intuitions, we have to make precisely the same allowance, and to expect the same disturbing causes. These, with the remarks I made in refutation of Paley's objections, I think suffice to sustain the true theory on that point.

I hold, then, that as there is, in some propositions, (not in all — some are truisms, many are meaningless, caf jiSgme^^^^^^^^^ ^°^" and some so unknown as to be neither affirmed nor denied,) the element of truth or falsehood, original, simple, incapabable of anlaysis or definition in simpler terms, and ascertainable by the mind's intellection ; so there is in actions, of the class called moral, an intrinsic quality of rightness or wrongness, equally simple, original, and incapable of analysis ; and, like simple truth, perceived immediately by the inspection of the reason. This quality is intrinsic ; they are not right merely because God has commanded, or because He has formed souls to think so, or because He has established any relation of utility, beneficence, or self-interest therewith. But God has commanded them, and formed these relations to them, because they are right. Just as a proposition is not true because our minds are so constructed as to apprehend it such ; but our minds were made by God to see it so, because it is true.

But understand me ; I do not assert that all moral distinc- Some moral Tud<T- tions in particular acts are intuitively seen, or ments likewise deduc- necessarily seen. As in propositions, some ^^^'^' have primary, and some deductive truth ;

some are seen to be true without premises, and some by the help of premises ; so, in acts having moral qualities, the rightness or wrongness of some is seen immediately, and of some deduct- ively. In the latter, the moral relation of the agent is not immediately seen, but the moral judgment is mediated only by the knowledge of some other truths. If these truths are not known, then the moral quality of the act is not obvious. From this simple remark it very clearly follows, that if the mind's belief touching these truths, which are premises to the moral judgment, be erroneous, the moral judgment will also err. Just as in logic, so here ; false premises, legitimately used, will lead to false conclusions. And here is the explanation of the discrepancies in moral judgments, which have so confused Ethicks.

2. But there are several writers of eminence, who, while they substantially, yea nobly, uphold the originality and excel-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

"3

lence of man's moral distinctions, err, as we think, in the details of their analysis. A moment's inquiry into their several depar- tures from my theory, will best serve to define and establish it.

(a) Seeing that the moral distinction is intrinsic ; what is the The Moral Distinc- faculty of the soul by which it is apprehended ? tion seen by the Rea- (Bear in mind a faculty is not a limb of mind, ^°"" but only a name we give to one phase or sort

of its processes.) Does it apprehend it by its reason ; or by a distinct moral faculty? Says Dr. Hutcheson, an English writer: By a distinct, though rational perceptive faculty, which he names, the moral sense ; and describes as an internal sense — i. e., a class of processes perceptive, and also exhibiting sensibil- ity. Says Dr. Alexander; The perceptive part of our moral processes, is simply a judgment of the reason. It is but an intellection of the understanding, like any other judgment of relations, except that it immediately awakens a peculiar emo- tion, viz : the moral. Now, it might be plausibly said that the reason is concerned only with the judgment of truth; and we have strenuously repudiated the analysis which reduces the moral distinction to mere truth. But it should rather be said, that the proper field of the reason is the judgment of relations ; truth existing in propositions is only one class. There seems no ground to suppose that the moral judgment, so far as merely intellective of the distinction, is other than a simple judgment of the reason ; because, so far as we know, wherever reason is, there, and there only, are moral judgments. 2d. If the faculties were two, the one, we might rationally expect, might sometimes convict the other of inaccuracy, as the memory does the reason, and vice versa. 3d. The identity of the two processes seems strongly indicated by the fact, that if the reason is misled by any falsehood of view, the moral sentiment is infallibly per- v^erted to just the same extent. The moral motive is always a rational one. Some rational perception of the truth of a proposition predicating relation, is necessary, as the occasion of its acting, and the object of a moral judgment. The reason why brutes have not moral ideas, is that they have not reason. In short, I see nothing gained by supposing an inward perceptive faculty called moral sense, other than the reason itself.

(b.) Next we notice the question : at what stage of its perceptions of the relations of acts, does the reason see the moral distinction? In each separate case immediately, as soon as the soul is enough developed to apprehend the relations of the particular act? No ; answers Jouffroy ; but only after a final generalization is accomplished by the reason.

His theory is: i. That in the merely animal stage of

existence, the infant acts from direct, uncal-

jou loy s V.C erne. Qulating instinct alone. The rational idea

of its own natural good is the consequence, not origin, of the

8*

114 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

experienced pleasure following from the gratification of instinct. 2. Thus experience presents the occasions upon which the reason gives the general idea of personal good ; and the motives of self-calculation begin to act. But 3d. The child also observes similar instincts, resulting in its fellow-men in natural enjoyment to them ; and as it forms the general idea of its own natural good (satisfaction of the whole circle of instincts to greatest attain- able degree) as its properest personal end, reason presents the general truth, that a similar personal end exists for this, that, the other, and every fellow-man. Here, then, arises a still more general idea ; the greatest attainable natural good of all beings generally; the "absolute good," or "universal order;" and as soon as this is reached, the reason intuitively pronounces it the moral good ; to live for this, is now seen to be man's proper end ; and rightness in acts is their rational tendency to that end. This is rather a subtile and ingenious generalization of the result of our moral judgments, than a correct account of their origin. This generalization, as made by the opening mind, might suggest the notion of symmetry, or utility as belong- ing to the "absolute order," but surely that of obligatoriness is an independent element of rational perception ! If the idea of rightness and obligation had never connected itself in the opening mind with any specific act having a tendency to man's natural good, how comes the mind to apprehend the universal order as the obligatory moral end, when once the reason forms that abstraction? It seems to me that the element of moral judgment must be presupposed, to account for the result. Again ; the supposed process is inconsistent with a correct idea of the generalizing process. The process does not transmute, but only colligates the facts which it ranks together. The gen- eral attributes which the mind apprehends as constituting the connotation of the general term, are precisely the attributes which it baw to be common in all the special cases grouped together. So that, if a moral order had not been already apprehended by the reason in the specific acts, the mere apprehension of the universal order would not produce the conviction of its morality. Experience would strengthen the moral idea. But usually the most unhackneyed have it most vividly- But it is right to say, that Jouffroy, notwithstanding this peculiarity of his theory, deserves the admiration of his readers, for the beauty of his analyses, and the general eleva- tion of his views.

(c) The ethical lectures of Dr. Thomas Brown, of Edinburgh,

are marked by great acuteness, and nobility

Sentimentd Scheme ^^ general tone ; and he has rendered gallant

or Dr. 1 nomas un^wn. °. . - . ' . ,° .

service m refutmg the more erroneous theories. He makes moral distinctions original and authoritative ; and yet allows the reason only a secondary function in them. The whole result of this analysis is this : when certain actions (an

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I 1 5

action is nothing more than the agent acting) are presented, there arises immediately an emotion, called, for want of a more vivid term, moral approbation, without any previous condition of self-calculation, judgment of relation in the reason, &c. This immediate emotion constitutes our whole feeling of the rightness, obligation, meritoriousness, of the agent. As expe- rience gathers up and recollects the successive acts which affect us with the moral emotion, reason makes the generalization of them into a class ; and thus, derivatively forms the general idea of virtue. Man's moral capacity, therefore, is, strictly, not a power of intellection, but a sensibility. The reason only gen- eralizes into a class, those acts which have the immediate power of affecting this sensibility in the same way. And Brown's system deserves yet more than Adam Smith's, which he so ably refutes, to be called the Sentimental System. The moral sentiment is with him strictly an instinctive emotion.

Now, it does not seem to me a valid objection, to say with Jouffroy, that thus, the moral emotion is made one among the set of our natural instincts : and there no longer appears any reason why it should be more dominant over the others out of its own domain, than they over it; (e. g., more than taste, or resentment, or appetite.) For the very nature of this moral instinct. Brown might reply, is, that it claims all other suscepti- bilities which have moral quality, are in its own domain.

The truer objections are: that this notion does not square

Objection. 1st. Soul with the analogies of the soul. In every

always sees, in order case, our emotions arise out of an intellection.

to feel. 2d. No virtue ^\^[^ [^ true, in a lower sense, even of our

without rational, im- .... , . . i • i

personal motive. 3d. anmial mstuicts. It IS perception which There would be no awakens appetites. It is the conception of

uniform standard. • 1. 4. a. • • 1 ■ i „• 4-I „ • „'i 4-^

an intent to injure, which gives the signal to our resentment, even when it arises towards an agent non- moral. And in all the more intellectual emotions, as of taste, love, moral complacency, the view of the understanding, and that alone, evokes the emotion in a normal way. The soul feels, because it has seen. How else could reason rule our emotions ? Surely this is one of our most important distinctions from brutes, that our emotions are not mere instincts, but rational affections. Note, especially too, that if our moral sentiments had no element of judgment at their root, the fact would be inexplicable, that they never, like all other instinctive emotions, come in collision with reason. Again : Dr. B. has very properly shown, in overthrowing the selfish systems of human action, that our instincts are not prompted by self- interest. He seems, therefore, to think that when he makes the moral emotion an instinctive sensibility, he has done all that is needed to make it disinterested. But an action is not, there- fore, morally disinterested, because it is not self-interested. Then would our verj^ animal appetites, even in infancy, be vir-

Il6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

tues ! The truth is : in instinctive voHtions, the motive is per- S0nal to the agent ; but not consciously so. In selfish volitions the motive is personal to the agent ; and he knows it. Only when the motive is impersonal, and he knows it, is there disin- terestedness, or virtue. Last ; if Brown's theory were correct, moral good would only be relative to each man's sensibility ; and there would be no uniform standard. An act might be good to one, bad to another, just as it presented itself to his sensibility ; as truly as in the sense of the natural good ; one man calls oysters good ; and another considers oysters bad. Whereas the true doctrine is, that moral distinctions are as intrinsic in certain acts, as truth is in certain propositions : and eternal and immutable. Even God sees, and calls the right to be right, because it so : not vice versa. Dr. Brown foresees this ; and attempting to rebut it, is guilty of peculiar absurdity. Why says he, does it give any more intrinsic basis for moral distinctions in the acts (or agents acting) themselves, to suppose that our cognizance of them is by a rational judgment, than to say, with him, that it is in the way they naturally affect a sensi- bility in us? The capacity of having the intuitive judgment is itself but a sort of rational sensibility to be affected in a given way ; and, in either case, we have no ground for any belief of an intrinsic permanence of the relation or quality perceived, but that our Maker made us to be affected so ! Thus, he betrays the whole basis of morals and truth, to a sweeping skepticism. Does not intuition compel us to believe that reason is affected with such and such judgments, because the grounds of them are actual and intrinsic in the objects? Dr. Brown goes to the absurd length of saying, that the supposed relations ascertained by reason herself, are not intrinsic ; and exist nowhere, except in the perceiving reason ! e. g., the relation of square of hypothenuse. Says he : were there nowhere a perceiving mind comprehending this relation, the relation would have no existence, no matter how many right-angled triangles existed ! Is not this absolute skepticism ? Is it not equivalent to saying that none of the perceptions of reason, (i. e, human beliefs,) have any objective validity? There need be no stronger refutation of his theory, than that he should acknowl- edge himself driven by it to such an admission.

The correct view, no doubt, is this : that our simplest The moral State com- rnoral states consist of two elements : a judg- plex. Illustrated by ment of the understanding, or rational percep- ^^^^^- tion of the moral quality in the act; and an

immediate, peculiar emotion, called approbation, arising there- upon, giving more or less warmth to the judgment. In our moral estimates of more complex cases, just as in our intellect- ual study of derived truths, the process may be more inferential, and more complex. It has been often, and justly remarked, that the parallel between the rational aesthetic functions of the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 11/

soul, and its moral functions, is extremely instructive. Psy- chology teaches us that rational taste (for instance, the pleasure of literary beauty in reading a fine passage,) consists of a judgment, or cluster of judgments, and a peculiar emotion immediately supervening thereon. The sentiment of taste is, then, complex, consisting of an action of the intelligence and a motion of the sensibility. The former is cause ; the latter is consequence. After the excitement of the sensibility has wholly waned, the judgment which aroused it remains fixed and unchanged. Now, it is thus with our moral sentiments. A rational judgment of the intrinsic righteousness or wrongness of the act immediately produces an emotion of approbation, or disapprobation, which is original and peculiar. The whole vividness of the sentiment may pass away ; but the rational judgment will remain as permanent as any judgment of truth in propositions. The great distinction between the aesthetic and ethical actions of the soul, is that the latter carries the practi- cal and sacred perception of obligation.

Conscience, as I conceive, is but the faculty of the soul

". Conscience, j^st described, acting with reference to our what? Obligation, own moral acts, conceived as future, done, or

* ■ remembered as done. When we conceive

the wrongness of an act as done by ourselves, that judgment and emotion take the form of self-blame, or remorse ; wherein the emotion is made more pungent than in other cases of disapprobation, by our instinctive and our self-calculating self- love, one or both. So of the contrasted case. And the merit of an action, looked at as past, is no other than this judgment and feeling of its rightness, which intuitively connects the idea of title to reward with the agent, i. e. Our ideas of merit and demerit are intuitions arising immediately upon the conception of the rightness or wrongness of the acts ; connecting natural good or evil with moral good or evil, by an immediate tie. Our ideas of desert of reward or punishment, therefore, are not identical with our sentiments of the rightness or wrongness of acts, as Dr. Brown asserts, but are intuitively consequent theron. Dr. B. also asserts, as also Dr. Alexander, that our notion of obligation is no other than our intuitive judgment of rightness in acts, regarded as prospective. Therefore, it is useless and foolish to raise the question : " Why am I obliged, morally, to do that which is right?" it is as though one should debate why he should believe an axiom. This is substantially correct. But when they say : whatever is right, is obligatory, and vice versa, there is evidently a partial error. For there is a limited class of acts, of which the rightness is not propor- tioned to the obligation to perform them ; but on the contrary, the less obligation, the more admirable is the virtue of doing them gratuitously. Such are some acts of generosity to unworthy enemies : and especially God's to rebel man. That

Il8 SYLLABUS AND XOTES

God was under no obligation to give His Son to die for them, is the very reason His grace in doing so is so admirable ! Obligation, therefore, is not always the correlative of rightness in the act, but it is, always, the correlative of a right in the object. This is the distinction which has been overlooked — i: e., a multitude of our acts have a personal object, God, self, a man, or mankind, one or more ; and the conscience in many cases apprehends, not only that the act would be right, but that such are the relations of ourselves to the object, that he has a ricfht, a moral title to have it done, in such sense that not only the doing of the opposite to him, but the withholding of the act itself, would be wrong. In every such case, the notion of obligation arises. And that, stronger or weaker, whether the object's right be perfect or imperfect.

The most important thing, however, for us to observe, is

that every sane mind intuitively recognizes sden?eT?nTuiUve^'^" this moral obligation. The judgment and

emotion we call conscience, carries this pecul- iarity over all other states of reason or instinct ; that it contains the imperative element. It utters a command, the rightness of which the understanding is necessitated to admit. Other motives, rational or instinctive, may often (alas !) overcome it in force ; but none of them can dispute its authority. It is as impossible for the mind, after having given the preference to other motives, to think its choice therein right, as it is to think any other intuition untrue. Conscience is the Maker's impera- tive in the soul.

Hence, it must follow, that the dictate of conscience must

always be obeyed ; or sin ensues. But con-

Must conscience, science is not infallible, as guided by man's misginded, be obeyed. ^ ,,., , , ,. . . °, r i i

fallible understandmg : it is clear, irom both

experience and reason, that her fiat may be misdirected. In that case, is the act innocent, or wrong? If you say the latter, you seem involved in a glaring paradox ; that to obey would be wrong; and yet to disobey would be wrong. How can both be^true? If you say the former, other absurdities would follow. 1st. Truth would seem to be of no consequence in order to right; and the conscience might just as well be left uninformed, as informed, so far as one man is personally con- cerned therein. 2d. Each man's view of duty would be valid for him ; so that there might be as many clashing views of duty, as men, and each valid in itself; so that we should reach such absurdities as these : A has a right to a given object, which B has an equal right to prevent his having ; so that B has a moral right to do to A what is to him a moral wrong ! 3d. Many of the most odious acts in the world, reprobated by all posterity, as the persecutions of a Saul, or a Dominic, would be justified, because the perpetrators believed they were doing God service.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 19

The solution of this seeming paradox is in this fact: that God has not given man a conscience which Solution. -g (,g^p^|3ig Qf misleading him, when lawfully

and innocently used. In other words, while lack of knowledge necessary to perceive our whole duty may often occur, (in which case it is always innocent to postpone acting,) positive error of moral judgment only arises from guilty haste or heed- lessness, or indolence, or from sinful passion or prejudice. When, therefore, a man sincerely believes it right in his con- science to do what is intrinsically wrong, the wrongness is not in the fact that he obeyed conscience, (for this abstractly is right,) but in the fact that he had before, and at the time, perverted conscience by sinful means.

We intuitively apprehend that all agents are not proper

subjects of moral approbation or disappro-

4. What constitutes Nation. Hence, the question must be settled :

Moral agency. 11 • 1 1

what are the elements essential to moral

responsibility ! This can be settled no otherwise than by an appeal to our intuitions. For instance : we may take an act of the form which would have moral quality, if done by a moral agent — e. g., inflicting causeless bodily pain; and attributing it to successive sorts of agents, from lower to higher, ascertain what the elements are, which confer responsibility. As we walk through a grove, a dead branch falls on our heads ; we feel that resentment would be absurd ; much more disapproba- tion ; the thing is dead. We walk near our horse, he wantonly kicks or bites. There is a certain type of anger ; but it is not moral disapprobation ; we feel still, that this would be absurd. Here, there is sensibility and will in the agent : but no con- science or reason. We walk with our friend ; he treads on our corns and produces intolerable pain ; but it is obviously unin- tentional. We pass through a lunatic asylum ; a maniac tries to kill us. Here is sensibility, free-will, intention ; but reason is dethroned. In neither of these cases should we have moral disapprobation. A stronger man takes hold of our friend, and by brute force makes him strike us ; there is no anger towards our friend ; he is under co-action. We learn from these various instances, that free-agency, intention, and rationality are all necessary, to constitute a man a responsible moral agent.

SYLLABUS

1. Are man's actions under a fatal necessity ?

Alexander's Moral Science, chaps. 15, 16. Cousin, Le Vrai, &c., Lecon 14. Jouffroy, Lect. 4, 5. Morell, Hist. Mod. Phil, on Hobbes and Sensationalism, p. 74, &c., 299, &c.

2. What constitutes Free- Agency ? State the theory of Indifferency of the Will, and Power of Contrary Choice: State, on the other hand, the theory of Certainty, and Efficiency of- Motives. See,

Turrettin, Loc. x, Qu. i, Qu. iii, \ 1-4. Alexander, ch's 16, 18, 19. Edwards on the Will, Introduc. and pt. i, Morell, p. 299, &c. Reid's Philosophy of Mind. McCosh, Gov. Divine and Moral, p. 273, &c. Watson's Theolog. Institutes, Vol. ii. p. 304, p. 435, &c.

3. Sustain the true doctrine, and answer objections. See,

Turrettin, Loc. x, Qu. 2. Edwards on the Will, pt. iii. Alexander, as above. Bledsoe on the Will; and Theodicy, pt. i. Aristotle, Nicomachian Ethics, bk. vi, \ 23. Dr. Wm. Cunningham, Hist. Theology, ch. 20, \ i, 2, 3. Anselm, Cur Deus Ho7no, pt. ii, ch. 10.

"D UT is man a free agent ? Many have denied it. These may be ranked under two classes, Theological Fatalists and Sen- I. Man a free- sualistic Necessitarians. The former argue agent, denied by two from the doctrine of God's foreknowledge P^^'^^^' and providence ; the latter from the certainty,

or, as it has unluckily been termed, necessity of the Will. Say the one party ; God has foreknown and foreordained all that is done by rational man, as well as by irrational elements, and His almighty providence infallibly effectuates it all. Therefore, man's will is only seemingly free ; he must be a machine ; com- pelled by God (for if God had no efficacious means to compel, He could not certainly have foreknown) to do what God pur- posed from eternity : and, therefore, man never had any real choice ; he is the slave of this divine fate. Say the other party, headed by Hobbes : man's volitions are all effects : following with a physical necessity upon the movement of the preponder- ant desires. But what are his desires? The soul intrinsically is passive ; the attributes are nothing but certain susceptibilities of being affected in certain ways, by impressions from without. There is nothing, no thought, no feeling in the mind, except what sensation produced there ; indeed all inward states are but modified sensations. Hence, desire is but the reflex of the perception of a desirable object; resentment but the re-action from impact. Man's emotions, then, are the physical results of outward impressions, and his volitions the necessary effects of his emotions. Man's whole volitions, therefore, are causatively determined from without. While he supposes himself free, he is the slave of circumstances : of fate, if those circumstances arise by chance. 120

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 121

Now, in answer to all this, it would be enough to say, that

^ ,. ,, our consciousness contradicts it. There can

Replies to them. , u-u -j ^i .i.r

be no higher evidence than that of conscious- ness. Every man feels conscious that wherever he has power to do what he wills, he acts freely. And the validity of this uniform, immediate testimony of consciousness, as Cousin well remarks, on this subject, must, in a sense, supersede all other evidence of our free-agency ; because all possible premises of such arguments must depend on the testimony of conscious- ness. But still, it is correct to argue, that man must be a free agent ; because this is inevitably involved in his responsibility. Conscience tells us we are responsible for our moral acts. Reason pronounces, intuitively, that responsibility would be absurd were we not free agents. It may be well added, that when you ap- proach revealed theologv, you find the Scriptures, (which so frequently assert God's decree and providence,) assert and imply, with equal frequency, man's free-agency. The king of Babylon (Isaiah xiv) fulfills God's purpose in capturing the sin- ful Jews ; but he also fulfills the purpose of his own heart. But we can do more than rebut the Fatalist's views by the testimony of our consciousness ; we can expose their sophistry. God's mode of effectuating His purposes as to the acts of free agents, is not by compelling their acts or wills, contrary to their prefer- ences and dispositions ; either secretly or openly ; but by ope- rating through their dispositions. And as to the latter argu- ment, from the certainty of the will ; we repudiate the whole philosophy of sensationalism, from which it arises. True, voli- tions are effects ; but not effects of the objects upon which they go forth. The perception of these is but the occasion of their rise, not the cause. When desire attaches itself upon any exter- nal object, terminating in volition, the whole activity and power are in the mind, not in the object. The true immediate cause of volition is the mind's own previous view and feeling ; and, this, again, is the result of the mind's spontaneity, as guided by its own prevalent attributes and habitudes.

What constitutes man a free agent ? Say one party : the 2. Freedom and self-determining power of the will; say the necessity defined. Other : the self-determining power of the soul. Semi-Pelangianism and jhe one asserts that our acts of volition are uncaused phenomena, that the will remains in eqiiilibrio, after all the preliminary conditions of judgment in the understanding, and emotion of the native dispositions are fulfilled, and that the act of choice is self-determined by the will, and not by the preliminary states of soul tending thereto ; so that volitions are in every case, more or less contingent. The other party repudiates, indeed, the old sensational creed, of a physical tie between the external objects which are the occa- sions of our judgments and feelings ; and attributes all action of will to the soul's own spontaneity as its efficient source.

122 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

But it asserts that this spontaneity, hke all other forces in the universe, acts according to law; that this law is the connection between the soul's own states and its own choices, the former being as much of its own spontaneity as the latter ; that there- fore volitions are not uncaused, but always follow the actual state of judgment and feeling, (single or complex,) at the time being ; and that this connection is not contingent, but efficient and certain. And this certainty is all that they mean by moral necessity.

The latter is evidently the true doctrine : because, (a) Our

3. Will deteraiin- consciousness says so. Every man feels that

ed by subjective Mo- when he acts, as a thinking being, he has a

tive. Arguments. ^^^^j^^ f^^. ^^^-^^ ^^ . ^^^ ^^^^^ -^ j^^ j^^^ ^^^

had, he v^^ould not have done it. The man is conscious that he determines himself, else, he would not be free ; but he is equally conscious that it is himself judging and desiring, which deter- mines himself choosing : (b) Otherwise there would be no such thing as a recognition of character, or permanent principles. For there would be no efficient influence of the man's own principles over his actions ; (and it is by his actions alone we would know his principles ;) and his principles might be of a given character, and his actions of a different, or of no char- acter, (c) Consequently there would be no certain result from human influence over man's character and actions, in education and moral government. We might educate the principles, and still fail to educate the actions and habits. The fact which we all experience every day would be impossible, that we can cause our fellow-men to put forth certain volitions, that we can often do it with a foreseen certainty, and still we feel that those acts are free and responsible, (d) Otherwise man might be neither a reasonable nor a moral being. Not reasonable, because his acts might be wholly uncontrolled at last by his whole under- standing ; not moral, because the merit of an act depends on its motive, and his acts would be motiveless. The self-determined volition has its freedom essentially in this, according to its advo- cates ; that it is caused by no motive. Hence, no acts are free and virtuous, except those which a man does without having any reason for them. Is this good sense ? Does not the virtuous- ness of a man's acts depend upon the kind of reason which moved to them ? (e) In the choice of one's sumimim bomtm, the will is certainly not contingent. Can a rational being choose his own misery, apprehended as such, and eschew his own hap- piness, for their own sakes? Yet that choice is free; and if certainty is compatible with free-agency in this the most im- portant case, why not in any other? (f) God, angels, saints in glory, and the human nature of Jesus Christ, must be certainly determined to right volitions by the holiness of their own na- tures, and in all but the first case by the indwelling grace and the determinate purpose of God. So, on the other hand, devils,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 23

lost souls, and those who on earth have sinned away their day of grace, must be certainly determined to evil, by their own de- cisive evil natures and habits : yet their choice is free in both cases.

(g) If the will were contingent, there could be no scicntia media; and we should be compelled to the low and profane ground of the Socinian ; that God does not certainly foreknow all things ; and in the nature of things, cannot. For the defi- nition of scientia media is, that it is that contingent knowledge of what free agents will do in certain foreseen circumstances, arising out of God's infinite insight into their dispositions. But if the will may decide in the teeth of that foreseen disposition, there can be no certain knowledge how it will decide. Nor is the evasion suggested by modern Arminians {vide, Mansel's Lim, of Relig. Thought) of any force ; that it is incompetent for our finite understandings to say that God cannot have this scientia media, because we cannot see how He is to have it. For the thing is not merely among the incomprehensibles, but the impossibles. If a thing is certainly foreseen, it must be cer- tain to occur, or else the foreknowledge of its certain occurrence is false. But if it is certain to occur, it must be because there will be an antecedent, certainly, or efficiently connected with the event, as cause. It is, therefore, in the knowledge of this causal connection, that God would find his scientia media, if this branch of His knowledge were mediate. To sum up in a word, the in- utility of this evasion, this Semi-Pelagian theory begins by im- puting to God an inferential knowledge of man's free acts, and then, in denying the certain influence of motives takes away the only ground of inference, (h) Last, God would have no efficient means of governing free agents ; things would be perpetually emerging through their contingent acts, unforeseen by God, and across His purposes; and His government would be, like man's, one of sorry expedients to patch up His failures. Nor could He bestow any certain answer to prayer, either for our own protection against temptation and wroiig choice, or the evil acts of other free agents. All the predictions of Scripture con- cerning events in which the free moral acts of rational agents enter as second causes, are arguments against the contingency of the will. But we see striking instances in Joseph, the Assyri- ans, Cyrus, and especially the Jews who rejected their Lord. From this point of view, the celebrated argument of Edwards for the certainty of the will from God's foreknowledge of creatures' free acts, is obvious. The solution of the cavils at- tempted against it is this position : That the principle, " No event without a cause," which is, to us, a universal and neces- sary first truth, is also a truth to the divine mind. When God certainly foresees an act, he foresees it as coming certainly out of its cause. Hence, I repeat, if the foresight is certain, the causation must be efficient.

•124 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

I have indicated, both when speaking of fatahsm and of Certainty of the Will the impossibiHty of a scientia media concern- proved by God's sov- ing a contingent will, the argument for the ereignty. certainty of the will contained in the fact of

God's sovereignty. If He is universal First Cause, then nothing is uncaused. Such is the argument; as simple as it is compre- hensive. It cannot be taught that volitions are uncaused, unless you make all free agents a species of gods, independent of Jehovah's control. In other words, if His providence extends to the acts of free agents, their volitions cannot be uncaused ; for providence includes control, and control implies power. The argument from God's sovereignty is, indeed, so conclusive, that the difficulty, with thinking minds, is not to admit it, but to avoid being led by it to an extreme. The difficulty rather is, to see how, in the presence of this universal, absolute sovereignty, man can retain a true spontaneity. I began by defining that, while the will of man is not self-determining, his soul is. I believe that a free, rational Person does properly originate effects ; that he is a true fountain of spontaneity, determining his own powers, from within, to new effects. This is a most glorious part of that image of God, in which he is created. This is free-agency ! Now, how can this fact be reconciled with what we have seen of God as absolute First Cause ?

(j) The demonstration may be closed by the famous Rednctio ad absiirdmn, which Edwards has borrowed from the scholastics. If the will is not determined to choice by motives, but determines itself, then the will must determine itself thereto by an act of choice ; for this is the will's only function. That is, the will must choose to choose. Now, this prior choice must be held by our opponents to be self-determined. Then it must be determined by the will's act- of choice — i. e., the will must choose to choose to choose. Thus we have a ridiculous and endless regress7is.

I now return to consider the objections usually advanced against .our doctrine. The most formidable is that which shall be first introduced ; the supposed incompatibility of God's sovereignty as universal First Cause, with man's freedom.

The reconciliation may and does transcend our compre- hension, and yet be neither unreasonable nor

Yet Man under Prov- • ]•, , rp, . , , ,, i-,., • ,

■idence is free. mcredible. 1 he point where the little circle

of creature volition inosculates with the

immense circle of the divine will, is beyond human view. When

we remember that the wisdom, power and resources of God are

infinite, it is not hard to see that there may be a way by which

our spontaneity is directed, omnipotently, and yet without

infringement of its reality. The sufficient proof is, that we,

finite creatures, can often efficaciously direct the free will of our

fellows, without infringing it. Does any one say that still, in

-every such case, the agent, if free as to us, has power to do the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 12$,

opposite of what we induce him to do ? True, he has physical power. But yet the causative efficacy of our means is certain ; witness the fact that we were able certainly to predict our- success. A perfect certainty, such as results from God's infin- itely wise and powerful providence over the creature's will, is all. that we mean by moral necessity. We assert no other kind of necessity over the free will. More mature reflection shows us, that so far are God's sovereignty and providence from infringing man's free-agency, they are its necessary conditions. Consider : What would the power of choice be worth to one if there were no stability in the laws of nature; or no uniformity in its powers ? No natural means of effectuating volitions would have any certainty, whence choice would be impotent, and motives would cease to have any reasonable weight. Could you intelli- gently elect to sow, if there were no ordinance of nature insuring seed time and harvest ? But now, what shall give that stability to nature ? A mechanical, physical necessity ? That results in naught but fatalism. The only other answer is : it must be the intelligent purpose of an almighty, personal God.

The leading objections echoed by Arminians against the certainty of the will, is, that if man is not free from all constraint, whether of motive or co-action, it is unjust in God to hold him. subject to blame, or to command to those acts against which His will is certainly determined, or to punishments for failure. We reply, practically, that men are held blamable and punish- able for acts to which their wills are certainly determined, both among men and before God ; and all consciences approve. This is indisputable, in the case of those who are overmastered by a malignant emotion, as in Gen. xxxvii : 4, of devils and lost souls, and of those who have sinned away their day of grace. The Arminian rejoins, (Watson, vol. 2, p. 438 :) Such trans- gressors, notwithstanding their inability of will, are justly held responsible for all subsequent failures in duty, because they sinned away the contingency of their own wills, by their own-, personal, free act, after they became intelligent agents. But as man is born in this inability of will, through an arrangement with a federal head, to which he had no opportunity to dissent, it would be unjust in God to hold him responsible, unless He had restored the contingency of will to them lost in Adam, by the common sufficient grace bestowed through Christ. But the distinction is worthless : ist, because, then, God would have been under an obligation in righteousness, to furnish a plan of redemption : but the Scriptures represent His act therein as purely gracious. 2d. Because, then, all the guilt of the subse- quent sins of those who had thrown away the contingency of their own wills, would have inhered in the acts alone by which they lost it. True ; that act would have been an enormously guilty one ; the man would have therein committed moral suicide. But it would also be true that the man was thereafter"

126 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

morally dead, and the dead cannot work. 3d. The Arminian should, by parity of reason, conclude, that in any will certainly determined to holiness, the acts are not meritorious, unless that determination resulted from the being's own voluntary self- culture, and formation of good dispositions and habits. Therefore God's will, which has been from eternity certainly determined to good, does nothing meritorious !*

But the more analytical answer to this class of objections is: that the certainty of disobedience in the sinner's will is no excuse for him, because it proceeds from a voluntary cause — i. e., moral disposition. As the volition is only the man willing, the motive is the man feeling ; it is the man's self. There is no lack of the requisite capacities, if the man would use those capacities aright. Now, a man cannot plead the existence of an obstacle as his excuse, which consists purely in his own spontaneous emission of opposition.

Now, the objections most confidently urged, are : (a.) That

our view makes man a machine, an intelligent That this makes us -jjut „i- • i-t i-

machines. *^"^' Indeed ; but a machme m which choice

follows motive by a physical tie. Ans. Man

is in one sense a machine, (if you will use so inappropriate an

illustration) ; his spontaneous force of action has its regular laws.

But he is not a machine, in the essential point ; the motive

power is not external, but is in himself

(b) It is objected that our scheme fails to account for all

That man acts choices where the man acts against his own

against his own judg- better judgment and prevalent feelings; or;

™^"'-' in other words, that while the dictate of the

* The antiquity of this cavil, and its proper refutation, may be seen in tlie Cur Dens Homo of Anselm, pt. ii, chap. 10, where the topic is tlie impeccability of Christ.

Boso. — "I say, then, if He cannot sin, because, as you say, He cannot wish to. He obeys from necessity; whence. He is not righteous from the freedom of His will. Then, what favour will be due Him for His righteousness? For we are wont to say, • that God, therefore, made angels and men such that they could sin ; since, inasmuch as they could forsake righteousness, and could keep righteousness out of the freedom of their will, they would deserve approbation and favour, which would not be due to them were they righteous from necessity."

Anselm. — "Are the (elect) angels who now cannot sin, to be approved ornot?"

Boso. — "Of course they are, because this gift (that they cannot sin) they earned in this way, viz. : by not choosing to sin when they could."

Ansf.lm.-^" Well, what do you say about God, who is not able to sm, and yet did not earn that state by not choosing to sin while He had power to do it: isn't He to be praised for His righteousness?"

Boso. — "I wish you would answer for me there; for, if I say He is not to be praised for it, I know I am lying; but if I say He is, I am afraid I shall spoil that argument of mine about the angels."

Anselm proceeds, accepting this virtual confession of defeat, to explain : That the approvableness of the angels' conduct depends, not on the question, '■'■How they came by the dispositions which prompt them to obey; " but on the question, whether they have such dispositions, and act them out of their own accord: That God, in creating them with free-agency, intelligence and holy dispositions, conferred His own image on them: and that their sjiontaneity, though conferred, is as real, and as really moral, as God's spontaneity, which was not conferred, but eternal and necessary. And that, if there were any force in Boso's cavil, that a morally necessitated righteous- ness would not be free and approvable in the creature, it would be far stronger against God, whose holiness is the most strictly necessitated of all, being absolutely eternal.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 12/

understanding as to the truly preferable, is one way, the will acts the other way ; e. g., the drunkard breaks his own anxiously made resolutions of temperance, and drinks. I reply, No ; still the man has chosen according to what was the prevalent view of his judgment and feelings, as a whole, at the time. That drunkard does judge sobriety the preferable part in the end, and on the whole ; but as to the question of this present glass of drink, (the only immediate object of volition,) his under- standing is misinformed by strong propensity and the delusive hope of subsequent reform, combining the advantages of present indulgence with future impunity ; so that its judgment is, that the preferable good will be this one glass, rather than present, immediate self-denial,

(c)It is objected that our repentance for having chosen wrong, That repentance always implies the feeling that we might implies power of con- have chosen Otherwise, had we pleased. I trary choice. reply, Ycs ; but not unless that choice had

been preceded at the time by a different view of the preferable. The thing for which the man blames himself is, that he had not those different feelings and views, (d.) It is objected that our theory could never account for a man's choosing between two alternative objects, equally accessible and desirable, inasmuch as the desire for either is equal, and the will has no self-deter- mining power. The answer is, that the equality of objects by no means implies the equality of subjective desires. For the mind is never in precisely the same state of feeling to any external object or objects, for two minutes together, but ever ebbing and flowing more or less. In this case, although the objects remain equal, the mind will easily make a difference, perhaps an imagi- nary one. And farther : the two objects being equal, the inertia of will towards choosing a given one of them, may be infinitesimally small ; so that an infinitesimally small prepon- derance of subjective motive may suffice to overcome it. Remember, there is already a subjective motive in the general, to choose some one of them. A favorite instance supposed is that of a rich man, who has in his palm two or three golden guineas, telling a beggar that he may take any one. But they are exactly equal in value. Now, the beggar has a very posi- tive motive to take some one of them, in his desire for the value to him of a guinea. The least imaginative impulse within his mind is enough to decide a supposed difference which is infinitesimal.

Most important light is thrown upon the subject, by the

proper answer to the question, what is mo- Motive, what? The ^j p jj^g j^ ^ ^ ■ j

Inducement not Motive. . . , . ^, ,.

self-moved, what is it which precedes the voli- tion, and is the true cause ? I reply, by distinguishing between .motive and inducement. The inducement is that external object, towards which the desire tends, in rising to choice.

128 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Thus, the gold seen by the thief is the inducement to his voh- tion to steal. But the perception of the gold is not his motive to that volition. His motive is the cupidity of his own soul, projecting itself upon the gold. And this cupidity, (as in most instances of motive,) is a complex of certain conceptions of the intellect, and concupiscence of the heart ; conceptions of various utilities of the gold, and concupiscence towards the pleasures which it could procure. The inducement is objective ; the mo- tive is subjective. The inducement is merely the occasion, the motive is the true cause of the resulting volition. The object which is the inducement projects no force into the thief's soul. On the contrary, it is the passive object of a force of soul pro- jected upon it. The moral power is wholly from within out- wards. The action is wholly that of the thief's soul, the induce- ment is only acted on. The proof of this all important view is in this case. The same purse of gold is seen, in the same cir- cumstances of opportunity and privacy, by two men ; the second is induced by it to steal : on the first, it had no such power. Why the difference ? The difference must be subjective in the two men, because objectively, the two cases are identical. Your good sense leads you to explain the different results by the dif- fering characters of the two men. You say : " It is because the first man was honest, the second covetous." That is to say, the causative efficiency which dictated the two volitions was, in each case, from within the two men's souls, not from the gold. Besides, the objects of sense are inert, dead, senseless, and de- void of will. It is simply foolish to conceive of them as emit- ting a moral activity. The thief is the only agent in the case.

This plain view sheds a flood of light on the doctrine of the will. A volition has always a cause,

neceTsltySe. '''^''' ""^ '^^^^^^^ i^ ^^^^ (subjective) motive. This cause is efficient, otherwise the effect, volition, would not follow. But the motive is subjective ; i. e., it is the agent judging and desiring, just as truly as the volition is the agent choosing. And this subjective desire, causative of the choice, is a function of the agent's activity, not of his passivity. The desire is as much of the agent's spontaneity (self-action) as is the choosing. Thus is corrected the monstrous view of those who deduced a doctrine of the necessity of the will from a sensualistic psychology. If volition is efficiently caused by desire, and if desire is but the passive reflex of objective per- ception, then, indeed, is man a mere machine. His seeming free-agency is wholly deceptive ; and his choice is dictated from without. Then, indeed, the out-cry of the semi-Pelagian against such a necessity is just. But inducement is not motive; desire is an activity, and not a passivity of our souls. Our own subjective judgments and appetencies cause our volitions.

On the other hand, it is equally plain, that the adaptation

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 29

Indncement receives ^^ ^"7 object to be an inducement to volition, its influence from the depends on some Subjective attribute of subjective disposition, appetency in the agent. This state of appe- tency is a priori to the inducement, not created by it, but conferring on the object its whole fitness to be an inducement. In other words, when we seek to propagate a volition, by hold- ing out an inducement as occasion, or means, we always presuppose in the agent whom we address, some active pro- pensity. No one attempts to allure a hungry horse with bacon, or a hungry man with hay. Why ! Common sense recognizes in each animal an a priori state of' appetite, which has already determined to which of them the bacon- shall be inducement, and to which the hay. The same thing is true of the spiritual desires, love of applause, of power, of justice, &c. Hence, it follows, that inducement has no power whatever to revolutionize the subjective states of appetency natural to an agent. The effect cannot determine its own cause.

From this point of view may also be seen the justice of that philosophy of common sense, with which we set out ; when we remarked that every one regarded a man's free acts as in- dices of an abiding or permanent character. This is only be- cause the abiding appetencies of soul decide which objects shall be, and which shall not, be inducements to choice.

The student will perceive that I have not used the phrase, " freedom of the will." I exclude it, because om la . persuaded that it is inaccurate, and that it has

occasioned much confusion and error. Freedom is properly predicated of a person, not of a faculty. This was seen by Locke, who says, B. 2, ch. 21, sec. 10, " Liberty is not an idea belonging to volition, or preferring, but to the person having the power." This is so obviously true, as to need no argument. I have preferred therefore to use the phrase, at once popular and exact : " free agency," and " free agent." Turrettin (Loc. x, Qu. i) sees this objection to the traditionary tQvm, " Libetimi arbitrinm," and hesitates about its use. But, after carefully de- fining it, he concedes to custom that it may be cautiously used, in the stipulated sense of the freedom of the Agent who wills. It would have been safer to change it.

I have also preferred to state and argue the old question as to the nature of free agency, in the common form it has borne in the history of theology, before I embarrassed the student with any of the attempted modifications of the doctrine. Locke, following the sensualistic definition, says that " liberty is the idea of a power in any agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind." But more profound analysts, as Reid and Cousin, saw that it con- sists in more than the sensualist would represent : mere privi- lege to execute outwardly what we have willed. My conscious- ness insists, that I am also a free Agent in having that volition. 9-

13c SYLLABUS AND NOTES

There, is the essential feature of choice ; there, the rational pref- erence first exhibits itself. The rational psychologists, conse- quently, assert the great, central truth, that the soul is self-de- termining. They see clearly that the soul, and not the objec- tive inducement, is the true cause of its own acts of choice ; and that hence man is justly responsible. But in order to sus- tain this central point, they vacillate towards the old semi-Pe- lagian absurdity, that notonly the man, but the separate faculty of will,. is self-determined. They fail to grasp the real facts as to the nature and the power of subjective motive, the exercise of another set of faculties in the soul. Edwards saw more per- spicaciously. Teaching that motive efficaciously determines the will, he defined motive, as all that which, to- Motive, What? gether, moves the will to choice. It is always a complex of some view or judgment of the understand- ing, and some movement of appetency or repulsion as to an object. These two elements must be, at least virtually and im- plicitly, in the precedaneous state of soul ; or choice, volition, would not result. The intelligence has seen some object in the category of the true (or at least has thought it saw it thus), and the appetency has moved towards it as in the category of the desirable ; else, no deliberate, affirmative volition had occurred. The mere presence and perception of the object is the occasion ; the soul's own judgment and appetency form the cause of the act of choice.

But what is appetency ? If we conformed it with passion,

with mere impression on natural sensibilities. Desire is not Passive. ^^ ^^^j^ ^^j^ -^^^ ^^^ f-^^^j ^^^^^^ ^^ ^j^^ g^^^^^,

alist. Sir Wm. Hamilton has done yeoman's service to truth, by illustrating the difference (while he has claimed more than due credit for originating the distinction). He separates the passive powers of " sensibility," from the active powers of " co- nation." This is but the old (and correct) Calvinistic classifi- cation of the powers of the soul under " understanding," " affec- tions," and "will." Here, be it noted, the word "will" is taken, as in some places of our Confession, in a much wider sense than the specific faculty of choice. " Will" here includes all the active powers of the soul, and is synonymous with Sir Wm. Hamilton's " conative" powers. When we say, then, that man's boul is self-determining, we mean that, in the specific formation of choice, the soul choosing is determined by a complex of pre- vious functions of the same soul seeing and desiring. In this sense the soul is free. But, as has been stated, no cause in the universe acts lawlessly. "Order is heaven's first law." And the

regulative law of souls, when causing voli- . Disposition the all- ^- ■ f ^ j their dispositions. This all-

important 1' act. . ' . • 1 1 1

unportant fact m free-agency, is what the scho- lastic divines called Ilahitits (not Consuctudo). It is the same i:otion popularly expressed by the word character. We know

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I3I

that man has such Juibitus, or disposition, which is more abiding than any access, or one series of acts of any one desire. For . we deem that in a knave, for instance, evil disposition is present while he is eating, or laughing, or asleep, or while thinking of anything else than his knavish plans. If we will reflect, we shall see that we intuitively ascribe disposition, of some sort, to every rational free agent : indeed we cannot think such an ob- ject without it. God, angel, demon, man, each is invariably conceived as having some abiding disposition, good or bad. It is in this that we find the regulative principle of the free-agency of all volition rises according to subjective motive. Subjective motive arises (freely) according to ruling subjective disposition. Disposition also is spontaneous — its very nature is to act freely. Here then, we have the two ultimate factors of free agency ; Spontaneity, Disposition, Here we are at the end of all possible analysis. It is as vain to ask : "Why am I disposed thus?" as to seek a prior root of my spontaneity. The fact of my re- sponsibility as a free agent does not turn on the answer to the question : it turns on this : that the disposition, which is actually my own will, regulates the rise freely of just the subjective mo- tives I entertain. Let the student ponder my main argument (on pages 122 to 124) and he will see that in no other way is the free agency of either God, angel, or sinner, to be construed by us.

Dr. McCosh (Div. and Moral Gov. as cited in the syllabus,)

wrests the true doctrine in some degree. He McCosn's view of the ' n ,1 -ii .1 ,, , ,• r 1- x -i

•vviii. calls the will the optative faculty, correctly

distinguishing desire from sensibility, (which

he terms emotion.) But he erroneously confounds appetency

and volition together as the same functions of one power. That

this is not correct, is evinced by one short question : May not

the soul have two competing appetencies, and choose between

them ? We must hold fast, with the great body of philosophers,

to the fact, that the power of decision, or choice, is unique, and

not to be confounded even with subjective desires. It is the

executive faculty. Dr. McCosh concedes that motive (as

defined by Edwards) efficaciously decides the will ; but he

then asserts, with Coleridge, that the will determines motives.

Conceding this, he has virtually surrendered his doctrine to the

Arminian, and gotten around to a literal self-determination of

the will. He seems to have been misled by an inaccurate glimpse

of the truth I stated on p. 102, that the disposition determines a

priori which sorts of objects shall be inducements to it. There

is a two-fold confusion of this profound and important truth.

Disposition is not the will ; but a regulative principle of the

appetencies, or " optative " functions, through them controlling

the will. And, second, it is wholly another thing to say, that

this disposition decides which objects shall be inducements, the

occasions only of volitions ; and to say with Dr. McCosh, that

132 SYLL.-\_BUS AND NOTES

the will chooses among the soul's own subjective motives, the

verce causes of the very acts of choice !

Dr. Isaac Watts, as is often stated, attempted to modify

, . the doctrine of the will, by supposing^ that we

W^atts view.

had inverted the order of cause and effect.

He deemed that we do not choose an object because we have desired it ; but that we desire it because we have chosen it. In other words, he thought desire the result, and not the forerunner of choice. This scheme obviously leaves the question unanswered: How do volitions arise ? And by seem- ing to leave them without cause, he favors the erroneous scheme of the Arminian. It is enough to say, that no man's conscious- ness, properly examined, will bear out this position. Do we not often have desires where, in consequence of other causes in the mind, we form no volition at all? This question will be seen decisive.

Dr. Albert Taylor Bledsoe, in his Reply to Edwards, The-

„, , , . odicy, and other essays, attempts to modif\^

xjledsoe s view •^ . '^ ■*■ . .

the Arminian th&ory, without surrendering it. He is too perspicacious to say, with the crowd of semi-Pelagians, that volitions are uncaused results in the mental world ; he knows too well the universality of the great, necessary intuition, ex 7iihilo nihil. But denying that motives, even subjective, are cause of acts of choice, he says the mind is the immediate cause of them. He seems here to approach very near the orthodox view. Even Dr. Alexander could say, while denying the self-determination of the will, that he Was ready to admit the self-determination of the mind. But this concession of Dr. Bledsoe does not bring him to the correct ground. It leaves the question unexplained, in what way the mind is determined from within to choice. It refuses to accept the efficient influ- ence of subjective motive. It still asserts that any volition maj;- be contingent as to its use, thus embodying the essential features of Arminianism. And above all : it fails to see or admit the most fundamental fact of all; that original disposition which regulates each being's desires and volitions. The applications which this author makes of his modified doctrine betray still its essential Arminianism.

In conclusion, it is only necessary at this place to say in one word, that the disposition which is found in every natural man, as to God and godliness, is depravity. Hence his will, according to the theory expounded above, is, in the Scriptural sense, in bondage to sin, while he remains properly a free and responsible agent.

SYLLABUS

1. Have dispositions and desires, which are a priori to volition, a moral char- acter ?

Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 2. Dick, Lect. 105, on loth Com. Dr. Julias Muller,

Christian Doctrine of Sin. Hodge, Theology, pt. ii, ch. 5. Alexander's Moral

Science, ch. 20, 22, 23, 27. Edwards on tlie Will, pt. iv, \ i.

2. Is Man responsible for his Beliefs ?

Alexander's Moral Science, ch. 9, Lect. on Evidences, Univ. of Va., Lect. i. Review of the above by Dr. C. R. Vaughan, Southern Lit. Messenger, 1851.

3. "What is the proper province of Reason in Revealed Theology ?

Turrettin, Loc. i. Vol. i, Qu. 8, 9, 10. Thornwell's Lect. Vol. i, Lect. i. Hodge's Outlines, ch. 2. Hodge's Syst. Theology, pt. i, ch. 3, Milner's "End of Controversy." Hill's Divinity, bk. ii, ch. 5.

"V^ZlDE difference of opinion has long prevailed, as to man's

responsibility for the dispositions, habits and desires tend-

. „ ing to moral volitions. Pelagians and semi- Is concupiscence sm r T^,. ,1,- -l-f.

Pelagians say, that since responsibinty cannot be more extended than freedom of the will, no praise or blame can be attached to dispositions, which they hold to be invol- untary. And they say that Calvinists cannot dispute the latter statement, because they make dispositions causes of volition, and thus going before. Hence, also, is the Pelagian definition of sin and holiness, as consisting only of right or wrong acts of soul. The evangelical Arminian is usually found holding the middle ground, that only those dispositions, habits and desires have a moral responsibility attached to them, which have resulted from a series of acts of free-will. But we hold that man is praise- or blame-worthy for his dispositions, princi- ples and habits, as well as for his volitions ; and that his responsibility depends on the nature, and not on the origin, of the disposition which he spontaneously and intelligently entertains.

We make our appeal here to consciousness, which causes us shame and self-reproach for evil propensities not ripened into volitions, and tells us that we would feel equal resentment for evil dispositions towards us and our rights, though never formed into the overt intention of injury. 2d. Our minds intuitively judge that the moral character of an act resides in its motives. Witness the process of investigation in the charge for crime before a jury. Indeed, the act of volition, nakedly considered, is a merely natural effect, and has no more moral character than the muscular motions which follow it. For the volition which extends the hand with alms to an enemy, or with a bribe to one to commit a sin, is the same physical volition : we must go back

134 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of it, to the motive by which it was caused, to settle its moral character. That element is not in the naked volition ; says the Pelagian, it is not in the motives prior to volition ; then it is nowhere ! 3d. The notion is inconsistent with our established idea about character. Here is a man who is said to have a dishonest character. It only becomes cognizable to us by his acts. He must, then, have performed a series of acts, having the common quality of dishonesty. Now, nothing comes from nothing; there must be some cause for that sameness of char- acter; and that cause is the prevalent disposition . to steal, separate from, and prior to, each thievish act. For the bad cause cannot be in the will itself; this would be peculiarly objectionable to the Pelagian. This, then, is what is meant when this man is said to have a bad character. Has the word bad here, no proper meaning? Does the family of daughters, the separate acts, bear no relationship to their mother ? 4th. On the Pelagian scheme, the wickedness of sins of omission would be inexplicable. For in them, there is often no volition at all; and therein consists their wickedness. A man passinej by the water sees an innocent child drowning ; the idea oT rescue is suggested to his mind ; but he comes to no choice, does nothing, and while he hesitates, the child sinks to rise no more. Is he innocent? Our conscience declares that he is not. Now, we can consistently explain wherein he is not, viz., in the state of his selfish and indolent feelings. But the oppo- site party have no explanation. There has literally been no volition ; on their theory they should say, what every sound conscience rejects, that the neglect has been attended with no guilt. 5th. A similar argument is presented by instances of impulsive and unpremeditated acts, done before we have a moment for reflection. We properly approve or blame them, according as they are generous or malignant. But there has been no intelligent, deliberate choice ; if we confine our view exclusively to the act of soul itself, it appears as purely irra- tional as the impulses of mere animal instinct. The moral quality of these acts must be found, then, in the dispositions and principles which prompted them.

Such are the reasonings, drawn from the conscience and consciousness of all men. The conclusion cannot be restricted in the way proposed by the Arminian, For, if original or congenital dispositions have no moral quality, because not created by a series of acts of intelligent free-will, then : 1st. God could never have any moral credit, His holy disposition having been not only original and eternal, but necessary. 2d. Nor could the holy man, iVdam, or the holy angels have been approvable, though perfectly inno- cent, because their holy dispositions were infused into them by their creator. This contradicts both conscience and Scripture. 3d. When mankind see an inherited trait influencing the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 35

conduct, like the traditionary bravery of the Briton, or the congenital vengefulness of the American Indian, if they appre- hend that the agents are not lunatic, and are exercising a sane spontaneity as qualified by these natural traits, they approve or blame them. This shows that in the judgment of common sense, the responsibility turns only on the question, what the disposition is, and not, whence it is. Last : on this view, it would be impossible that the free agent could ever construct a righteous disposition, or habitus, by his own free acts. For all are agreed in that rule of practical law, which judges the moral complexion of the act according to the agent's intention. But a soul as yet devoid of positively righteous principles would harbor no positively moral intentions. Hence, the first act of choice which the philosophers look to, for beginning the right moral habitude, would have no moral quality, not being dictated by a moral motive. Then it could contribute nothing to the habit as a moral one. This very plain demonstration decides the whole matter, by showing that, on either the Pela- gian or Arminian scheme, a dependent being could never have a positively righteous character or action at all.

Our opponents argue that the involuntary cannot be sin, But obiected "That ^'^'^^ they suppose that they have intrenched the involuntary cannot themselves in the plainest of moral intuitions. ^^ ^'"•" The objection is, none the less, a sophism

. founded in the ambiguous use of the word involuntary. Man's moral dispositions are involuntary, in the sense that they do not immediately result from volitions as their next cause. But this is not the sense in which our intuitions assert the neces- sity of the voluntary to our responsibility. There is an entirely different sense, in which we say an act is involuntary, when it occurs against the choice of the will. Thus, the fall of the man over the precipice was involuntary, when he was striving to cleave to the edge of the stone. This is the sense in which we say that, self-evidently, the man was not blamable for his fall. The other meaning, sophistically confounded with this, raises the question whether the state or disposition is spontan- eous. If it acts spontaneously, not because a stronger agent forces the man to harbor or to indulge it against his choice, then, in the sense necessary to free agency, disposition is vol- untary ; that is to say, it is spontaneous ; it is as truly a function of self-love as volition itself The evidence is very near and plain. Does any external compulsion cause' us to feel our dispositions? No. From their very nature it cannot be: a compelled tendency would not be our disposition, but a violence put upon it. The main question may be submitted to a very practical test. Would a disposition to a wicked act subsist, even as not consented to or formed into a purpose, in a perfectly holy soul, like that of Gabriel, for one instant ? It would die in its very incipiency. The attempt to inject concu-

136 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

piscence, would be like an attempt to strike sparks from the flint and steel, in a perfect vacuum. The fire would expire in being born. But if the holiness of the nature thus excluded the birth, this clearly shows that the very birth of wrong desire or tendency is wrong.

Another objection is ; that our theory of the immorality Answer to objection of Gvil dispositions would imply that the that Soul's essence can- soul's essence is altered ; or that depravity is not be depraved. ^ change in the substance of the soul : which

would make God the author of sin, and man an unfortunate, sentient puppet. For, say they, there is nothing but the soul and its acts ; and if you deny that all morality resides in acts, some of it must reside in the essence of the soul itself. The sophism of this argument would be sufficiently exposed by ask- ing, what is a moral act. If you make it anything more than a mere notional object of thought, an imagination about which we think, is it any thing besides the soul acting ? Well: in the same sense, our moral dispositions are but our souls feeling. I reply again, and yet more decisively, that immoral quality is only negative — i. e., ^ H d-imoria iazc'j d'^o/ua. It is the lack of conformity to God's will, which constitutes sin. The negative absence of this principle of active conformity is all that is neces- sary to predicate. Thus, the idea of depravity's being a sub- stantial change is seen to be out of the question. We might farther reply to the challenge, whether there is anything before us, save the soul and its acts : Yes. There is the soul's essence, distinguishable from its substance : there is its disposition : there are its liabilities, its affections, its desires. The terms of the civil are no more than a verbal quibble. What true philoso- pher ever questioned the existence of qualities, qualifying a spirtual agent, yet not implying either decomposition or change of its simple substance ? Then it is possible that it may be qualified morally.

The question whether man is responsible for his belief, is nearly connected with the one just discussed. forhisSeS.'''"''''^^^ ^Ia"y modern writers have urged that he is not, because belief is the necessary and in- voluntary result of evidence seen by the mind. Further, it is urged ; if the doctrine that man is responsible for his belief be held, then the horrible doctrine of persecution will follow ; for erroneous beliefs being often very mischievous, if also criminal, it would follow that they ought to be punished by society. To the first, I reply, that while the admission of demonstrative proofs, when weighed by the mind is necessary, and involuntary, the voluntary powers have a great deal to do with the question whether they shall be weighed fairly or not. Inattention, pre- judice against the truth or the advocate, heedlessness, guilty and wicked habits of perverting the soul's faculties ; all these are voluntary; and I fearlessly assert, that no erroneous belief on

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 3/

any important moral question can arise in a sane mind, except through the operation of one or more of these causes. In this, then, is the guilt of false beliefs on moral subjects. To the second objection, I reply that it does not follow, because a man is responsible for his beliefs, he is responsible to his fellow-man. There are abundant reasons for denying the latter, which it would be easy to show, if I were going into the subject of free- dom of thought.

On the affirmative side, I remark, first : that all the analo- gies of nature show us a Providence holding

Because Nature and ^^^^ responsible for his beliefs. If prejudice,

Pi-ovidence rule thus. . f^ . . r j '

passion, haste, inattention, prevents a man

from attaching due weight to testimony or other evidence, as to the poison of a given substance, he experiences its effects just as though he had taken it of set purpose. So of all other things.

Second : Conscience clearly condemns many acts, based Because aU wrong be- immediately on certain beliefs, which were liefs have a criminal sincerely held at the time of acting. Now, <^^us^- if the belief had been innocent, the act

necessarily dictated thereby could not have been blame-worthy. Witness Paul, confessing the sin of his persecutions. Indeed, since belief on moral subjects ought to, and must dictate con- duct, if man is allowed to be a rational free agent, each man's own belief must be his own guide ; and hence an act might be right to one man, and wrong to another, at the same time. A would have a right (because he believed so) to a thing which B had a right to ; and so B would have a moral right to do A what would be to him a moral wrong? And farther; since whatever a man sincerely believed, would be right to him, truth would cease to be of any essential importance. This consequence is monstrous. Hence we must hold men responsible for their moral beliefs. God could not otherwise govern a world of ra- tional free agents ; for since the free dictates of each agent's soul must be, to him, the guide of his conduct, God could not justly condemn him for committing the crime which he sup- posed at the time to be a right act, after he had been acquitted of all responsibility for the opinion which unavoidably dictated the act. But is every one rash enough to justify all the crimes committed in this world under the influence of moral error heartily held at the time ? Then the vilest crimes which have scourged the world, from the retaliatory murders of savages (dictated by stress of tribal honour) to the persecution of God's saints (by inquisitors who verily thought they were doing God service) are made perfectly innocent.

It may be well to say a few more words to relieve the seem- ing paradox in this truth. To this separate X reso ve . element of the act, that it was conformed to the man's opinion of the right at the time ; as that element is

138 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

abstracted in thought from all other features of the concrete sin ; we do not suppose any criminahty to attach. But we are bound to go back to the prior question : How came a being en- dowed with reason and conscience, actually to believe the wrong to be right ? Could this result have been innocently brought about ? To say this, would be to accuse God his Maker. I can apprehend how God's finite handiwork, a rational soul, may re- main ignorant of many truths known to larger intelligences ; but I cannot admit that it can be betrayed into positive error by the normal, legitimate exercise of its powers. There is then, always a prior account of the mental perversion : The condi- tions of the erroneous result have been sinful indolence in look- ing at evidence, or unrighteous self-interest, or criminal preju- dice against the truth or its advocate, or some other combi- nation of evil affections. To these, specifically, attaches the guilt of the erroneous mental result. We see thus, that belief is not the involuntary result of evidence apprehended, in any practical moral case. The will (taking that word in its wider sense of the active, optative powers) has a great deal to do wjth the result, by inclining or disposing the mind to give proper heed to the attainable evidence. So much weight has this fact, that the profound Des Cartes, who almost deserves to be called the founder of modern philosophy, actually ranked belief as a function of will, rather than of understanding! Here then I place myself: when an action of soul is spontaneous, it may be, to that extent, justly held responsible.

The question with which we close this brief review of the 3. Province of nature of man's primary judgments, has ever Reason in Revealed been of fundamental importance in the Religion. Church : " What is the legitimate province

of Reason, in revealed theology ? " The pretended warfare between reason and faith has been waged by all those who wished to make a pretext for believing unreasonably and wick- edly. On the one hand, it is possible so to exalt the authority of the Church, or of theology, (as is done by Rome,) as to violate the very capacity of reason to which religion appeals. On the other, it is exceedingly easy to give too much play to it, and admit thus the virus of Rationahsm in some of its forms.

All the different forms of rationalism, which admit a revela-

„ ,. ,. ^,n ,„ tion as true or desirable at all, may be grouped Rationalism, What? ^ t^i 1 i ij «.i

under two classes, ist. 1 hose who hold the

PROTON PSEUDOS of the Socinians ; that man is to hold nothing credible in religion which he cannot comprehend. 2d. Those who, like the modern German rationalists, make the interpreta- tions of Scripture square with the teachings of human philosophy, instead of making their philosophy square with the plain mean- ing of revelation. Under the latter class must be ranked all those who, like Hugh Miller, in his Testimony of the Rocks, hold that the interpretation of the Pentateuch, concerning cos-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 39

mogony, must be moulded supremely by the demands of

geological theories, instead of being settled independently by

its own laws of fair exegesis. Here, also, belong those who,

like A. Barnes, say that the Bible must not be allowed to mean

what would legitimate American slavery, because he holds that

his ethical arguments prove it cannot be right : Et id ouuie

gemis.

The absurdity of the first class will be shown, more fully,

when we come to deal with the Socinian the- Comprehension not 1 t*. • 1 i. ,1 ,

the Measure of Truth, ology. It IS enough to say now, that reason

herself repudiates such a boast as preposter- ous. She does not truly comprehend all of anything : not the whole nature and physiology of the blade of grass which man presses with his foot : nor the modus of that union of body and soul which consciousness compels us to admit. Every line of knowledge which v/e follow, leads us to the circumference of darkness, where it is lost to our comprehension ; and the more man knows, the more frequently is he compelled to stop humbly at that limit, and acknowledge his lack of comprehension. So that, the most truly wise man is he who knows and believes most things which he does not comprehend.*

That our comprehension is not the measure of truth appears, again, thus : Truth is one and immutable. But the amount of comprehension any given man has, is dependent on his cultivation and knowledge. Thirty years ago it would have been wholly incomprehensible to a " field-hand," how a message could be sent along a wire by galvanism. It was not incomprehensible to Dr. Joseph Henry, who actually instructed Morse, the nominal inventor, how it might be done. On this Socinian scheme, then, truth would be contradictory for differ- ent minds. One man's valid code of truth would properly be, to a less cultivated man, in large part falsehood and absurdity. But this is preposterous.

But does not the Protestant assert, against the Papist, that

^ ^. faith, in order to be of any worth, must be

Does this counte- •iii-~ i.-^ ■^^ l. ^ ,^ ,, • i--

nance implicit Faith? intelligent? Do not we scout the "implicit faith" of the Papist? There is a distinction which fully solves this question, and which is simple and important. Every judg- ment in the form of a belief is expressed in a proposition. This, grammatically, consists of subject, predi- cate, and copula. Now, the condition of rational belief is, that the mind shall intelligently see some valid supporting evidence for the copula. If, without this, it announces belief, it is acting unreasonably. But it is wholly another thing to com- prehend the whole nature of the predication ; and this latter is

* It is related that the famous Dr. Parr, upon hearing a young Socinian flippantly say, he would beUeve nothing he could not comprehend, answered : "Then, sir, you. will have the shortest creed of any young gentleman in the kingdom."

140 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

not at all necessary to a rational faith. The farmer presents me on the palm of his hand, a sound grain of corn, and a peb- ble. He says : " This is dead, but that is alive." IMay I not, with him, rationally believe in the vitality of the grain ? Yes : because we have some intelligent view of the experimen- tal evidence which supports the affirmation. But suppose now I pass to the predication, " alive ; " and demand of the farmer that he shall give me a full definition of the nature ol vegetable vitality ? The greatest physicist cannot do this. Neither he nor I comprehend the nature of vegetable vitality. We know by its effects, that there is such a force, but it is a mysterious force. Let the student then hold fast to this simple law : In order to rational belief there must be some intelligent view of evidence sustaining the copula ; but there may be no comjDrehension of the nature of the predicate.

Now, if these things are just and true in all natural knowl- edge, how much more true in the things of the infinite God ? The attempt of the Socinian to make a god altogether compre- hensible, has resulted in a plan attended inevitably with more and worse incomprehensibilities, yes, impossibilities, than they reject.

To the second class of rationalists, the simple answer On Rationalist wliich reason gives is, that such a revelation Scheme, no Revealed as they admit, is practically no revelation at Rule of Faith. g^j}_ That is, it is no authoritative standard of

belief to any soul, on any point on which it may happen to have any opinion derived from other sources than the Bible. For each man's speculative conclusions are, to him, his philos- ophy ; and if one man is entitled to square his Bible to his philosophy, the other must be equally so. Further, it is well known that the deductions of all philosophies are fallible. The utter inconsistency of Rationalism, with any honest adoption of a Revelation, appears thus : It is the boast of Rationalists, that human science is progressive : that our generation is far in advance of our fathers. May not our children be as far in advance of us ? Things now held as scientific truth, will prob- ably be excluded; things not now dreamed of, will probably be discovered and explained. When that time comes, it must follow on the Rationalists' scheme, that the interpretation of the Scriptures shall receive new modifications from these new lights of reason. Propositions which we now hold as the meaning of Scripture, will then be shown by the lights of human science to be false ! What is it reasonable that we should do, at this time, with those places of Scripture ? Will any one say, " Reserve your opinion on them, until the light comes ? " Alas ! there is now no means for us to know where- abouts in the Bible they arc! No; Ave must attempt to construe the whole Scripture as best we may. Will any one say that our construction is true to us, but will be false to our

SYLLABUS AND NOTES I4I

more scientific childrea ? Hardly. If, therefore, the Bible is a revelation from the infallible God, reason herself clearly asserts that where the plain teachings of Scripture clash with such deductions, the latter are to be presumed to be wrong ; and unless revelation carries that amount of authority, it is practi- cally worthless. Rationalism is the wolf of infidelity under the sheep's clothing of faith.

It follows, then, that reason is not to be the measure, nor the ground, of the beliefs of revealed theology.

But on the other hand: 1st, the laws of thought which

necessarily rule in the human soul, were

But Revelation does established by the same God who gave the

not Violate Reason. t->., , tt t ^ • ^ • r

Bible. Hence, it there is a revelation irom

Him, and if these laws of thought are legitimately used, there

must be full harmony between reason and Scripture. But man

knows that he is not infallible : he knows that he almost always

employs his powers of thought with imperfect accuracy. On

the other hand, if revelation is admitted, its very idea implies

infallible truth and authority. Hence, it is clearly reasonable

that opinion must always hold itself .ready to stand corrected

by revelation.

The Scriptures always address us as rational creatures,

2d. Necessary laws ^.nd presuppose the authority of our native, of thought must be fundamental laws of thought. If we think at respected by it. • g^jj^ ^^^ must do it according to those laws.

Therefore, to require us to violate or ignore them fundamentally, would be to degrade us to unreasoning animals ; we should then be as incapable of religion as they.

The claim which the Scriptures address to us, to be the one

3rd. Authenticity of authentic and authoritative revelation from Revelation not self-evi- God, is addressed to our reason. This is clear *^^"^" from the simple fact, that there are presented

to the human race more than one professed revelation ; and that they cannot be authoritative witnesses to their own authority prior to its admission. It appears also from this, that man is re- quired not only to obey, but to believe and love the Bible. Now he cannot do this except upon evidence. The evidences of in- spiration must, therefore, present themselves to man's reason ; to reason to be employed impartially, humbly, and in the fear of God. He who says he believes, when he sees no proof, is but pretending, or talking without meaning.

Among these evidences, the reason must entertain this

4th. Revelation can- question : whether anything asserted in reve- not authorize self-con- lation is inevitably contradictory with reason ti-adictions. L unit a- qj- gome Other things asserted in revelation.

tions 01 this admission, -r- ■ c , , , , , . , 1 • , 1 •

ror it a book clearly contained such things, it would be proof it was not from God ; because God, who first created our laws of reason, will not contradict Himself by teach- ing incompatibles in His works and word. And again : in de-

142 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

manding faith (always a sincere and intelligent faith,) of us in such contradictories, He would be requiring of us an impossi- bility. If I see that a thing is impossible to be true, it is im- possible for me to believe it. Yet here, we must guard this con- cession against abuse ; asserting first, that the reason which is entitled to this judgment of contradiction concerning the Scrip- tures, shall be only a right, humble, and holy reason, acting in the fear and love of God ; and not a reason unsanctified, hostile, and blind. Second, that the supposed contradiction must be contained in the immediate and unquestioned language of the Scripture itself, and not merely deduced therefrom by some supposed inference. And third, that the truth supposed to be overthrown by it shall be also an express statement of God's word, or some necessary, axiomatic truth, universally held by mankind. For if one should object against the Bible, that some inference he had drawn from its words was irreconcilable with some similar inference, or some supposed deduction of his human logic, we should always be entitled to reply : that his powers of thought being confessedly inaccurate, it was always more probable he had inferred erroneously, than that Scripture had spoken inconsistently.

Reason is also to be employed to interpret and illustrate the 5th Reason and hu- Scriptures. To do this, the whole range of man knowledge ancil- man's natural knowledge may be taxed. The lary to Revelation. interpretation is never to presume to make

reason the measure of belief, but the mere handmaid of Scrip- ture. And the mode of interpretation is to be by comparing Scripture with Scripture according to the legitimate laws of lan- guage. The Scripture must be its own canon of hermeneutics ; and that, independent of all other supposed rival sciences. For otherwise, as has been shown above, it would cease to carry a practical authority over the human mind as a rule of faith. A Bible which must wait to hear what philosophy may be pleased to permit it to say, and which must change its dicta as often as philosophy chooses to change, would be no Bible for any sen- sible man.

Now, the prelatic system of Church-authority stands op- posed to this Protestant theory of private Faith rests on Evi- judgment. Prelatists claim for the reason-

dence, not Dictation. •',,° -,.,., ,. ,

ableness ot their slavish system, this analogy ; that the child, in all its primary education, has to accept things on trust as he is told. Human knowledge, say they, begins in dogma, not in reasoning. So should divine. The reply is, that this is a false analogy, in two vital respects. The secular knowl- edge which begins absolutely in dogma, is only that of signs ; not of things and ultimate truths. The child must indeed learn from dogma, that a certain rafter-shaped mark inscribed on the paper is the accepted sign of the vowel-sound A. The things of God are not mere signs, but essential truths. Second, the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I43

reception of divine truth is not an infantile, but an adult work. We are required to do it in the exercise of a mature intelligence, and to be infants only in guilelessness.

Prelatists and papists are fond of charging that the theory of private judgement amounts simply to .emffZSotir rationalism. For, say they '■ to malce revel- ation wait on reason for the recognition of credentials, virtually gives to the revealed dogma only the force of reason. ' The stream can rise no higher than its 'fountain.' On the Protestant scheme, revelation receives no more author- ity than reason may confer." The only plausibility of such objections is in the words of a false trope. Revelation it i's said, ' submits its credentials to the reason,' according to us Protestants. Suppose I prefer to say (the correct trope,) we hold that revelation imposes its credentials upon the healthy reason. In fact, as when the eye looks at the sun, there are activities of the organ towards the result of vision, such as adjusting the axes of the two balls, directing them, refracting the rays, &c., and yet, the light is not from the eye, but from the sun ; so in apprehending the validity of the Bible's credentials, the light is from the revelation ; not from the mind. Its activities about the apprehension of the evidence, are only receptive, not productive.

But the simple key to the answer is, that the question that we bring to the human reason, ' Is this book God speaking ?' is one, single question, perfectly defined, and properly within the reach of reason. The other question, which the Rationalist wished to make reason answer, is : ' What are the things proper for God to say about Himself and religion ?' There is, in fact, a multitude of questions, and mostly wholly above the reach of reason. We may illustrate the difference by the case of an ambassador. The court to which he comes is competent to entertain the question of his credentials. This is implied in the expectation that this court is to treat with him. The matter of credentials is one definite question, to be settled by one or two plain criteria, such as a signature, and the imprint of a seal. But what may be the secret will of his sovereign, is a very dif- ferent set of questions. To dictate one's surmises here, and especially to annex the sovereign's authority to them, is imper- tinent folly. But the messages of the plenipotentiary carry all the force of the recognized signature and seal.

Moreover, we must remember that man's state is proba- tionary. There is an intrinsic difference between truth and error, right reasoning and sophism, and the purpose of God in revelation is (necessarily) not to supplant reason, but to put man on his probation for its right use.

Last : Let the student, from the first, discard all the false Tvr , -f f and mischievous ideas generated by the slang

JNo strife of reason ° -^, ^ . , ,, °

with Faith. of the " contest between reason and taith. —

T.j ] SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of the propriety of having " reason conquer, faith, or faith con- quer reason." There is no such contest. The highest reason is to beheve impHcitly what God's word says, as soon as it is clearly ascertained to be God's word. The dictate of reason herself, is to believe ; because she sees the evidences to be reasonable.*

I need only add, that I hold the Scriptures to be, in all its parts, of plenary inspiration ; and we shall henceforward assume this, as proved by the inquiries of another department.

SYLLABUS

1. Give the Derivation and Meaning of the Names applied to God in the Scrip- tures.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 4. Breckinridge's Theolog}', Vol. i, p. 199. Concor- dances and Lexicons.

2. What is the meaning of the term, God's Attributes ? And what the most common Classifications of them ?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 5, &c. Dick, Lect. 21. Breckinridge, Vol. i, p. 260, &c. liodge, Syst. Theol. Vol. i, p. 369 to 372. Thornwell, Lect. 6, p. 162- 166 and 167, &c.

3. What are the Scriptural evidences of God's Unity, Spirituality and Simplicity? Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 3 and 7. Dick, Lect. 17 and 18.

4. W' hat the Bible-proofs of God's Immensity ? Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 9. Dick, Lect. 19.

■ 5. What the Scriptural proof of God's Eternity ?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 10. Dick, Lect. 17.

6. Prove from Scripture that God is Lnmutable.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. ii. Dick, Lect. 20. See on whole, "Charnock on the Attributes."

TN approaching the department of Revealed Theology, the first question is concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. This having been settled, we may proceed turlf i'sumid."^ ^"'''" t« assume them as inspired and infallible. Our business now is merely to ascertain and collect their teachings, to systematize them, and to show their relation to each other. The task of the student of Revealed Theology, is, therefore, in the first place, mainly exegetical. Having discovered the teachings of revelation by sound expo- sition, and having arranged them, he is to add nothing, except what follows " by good and necessary consequence." Conse- quently, there is no study in which the truth is more important, that " with the lowly is wisdom."

The New Testament, and still more, the Old, presents us

* See, for the true nature of belief, as distinguished from intuition or deduction,. "Sensualistic Phil, of the 19th Cent. Considered," Chap, x, end.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I45

with an interesting subject of study, in the

veai Him '' ^''™'' '^' ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ G°^' ^^^^^^^ ^^ey employ

to give our feeble mind a conception of His

manifold perfections. The names "1""' PT' ^^ "^jl^* ^^1^^5

^X^^^ "'jlC^' and ml^^:^^* np] in' the Hebrew, and Oso'^,

Ku<niK"T(l'caTO-, riavzoxpdTcoo, in the Greek, give, of themselves, an extensive description of His nature. For they are all, accord- ing to the genius of the ancient languages, significant of some quality ; and are thus, when rightly interpreted, proof-texts to sustain several divine attributes, nlrl'^ (Jehovah) with its abre-

viation, pn*", (which most frequently appears in the doxology, TV i/^n) ^^^^ ^"^^^ ^^^" esteemed by the Church the most

distinctive and sacred, because the incommunicable name of God. The student is familiar with the somewhat superstitious reverence with which the later Hebrews regard it, never pro- nouncing it aloud, but substituting it in reading the Scriptuies, by the word "^^l^. There seems little doubt that the sacred

name presents the same radicals with nTi''^ the future of the

substantive verb HTi- This is strikingly confirmed by Exodus

iii : 14, where God, revealing His name to Moses, says: nTi^

1D^ ^■'^^? ("^ ^^-'^ ^-^^^^ lam") is His name. For we have here,

in form the first person future of the substantive verb, and our Saviour, Jno. viii : 58, claiming the incommunicable divinity, says, imitating this place: "Before Abraham was, I AM."* In Ex. vi : 2, 3, we learn that the characteristic name by which God commissioned Moses was Jehovah. This is an additional argument which shows, along with its origin, that the naxae means self-existence and independence.

'•* This derivation is illustrated by a comparison, plausible and interesting, if not demonstrative, with the Greek and Latin names of God, T^tvc and Jove. By consult- ing Gen. xxiv : 4. and many other places, we learn that God was known to Abraham and his family by the name Jehovah, In Gen. xxvi : 28, we see that the Canaanites under Abimelech, of Gerar, still retained the knowledge of the true God, under the same name. The Phoenician mythology is the parent of the Grecian, as the Phoeni- cian alphabet is of the Greek. Now the votaries of the comparative philology of modern days, will have Zfi'j derived (by a change of Z to its cognate D,) from the Sanscrit root, Dis, whose root-meaning was supposed to be splendoii}-. To the same source they trace Osoq, Dciis, Diviis, Dies, &c. Tliis source may plausibly answer for the last named words. But as to Zei'f and Jove, may not another etymology be more probable? (as is confessed by some of the best Greek scholars) that Zcrr is from Zew, (the primary meaning of which is fervere,) and that this verb is closely cognate to Zaw, "I live," and Zw?;, "life.." Notice, then, the strange resemblance, almost an identity, between "Jehovah," and "Jove." The latter, •wi\\\ pater, makes the Latin nominative Jupiter — Jov-Patcr — father Jove. If this origin is ti-ue, then we have the Greek name of the chief God, Zfi'f, involving the same fundamental idea; "The Living One," — the self-existent source of life. This is much more explanatory of the early myths toucliing Jove, as the " Father of Gods and men," than tiie primary idea of the supposed Sanscrit root. 10*

146 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Such a meaning would, of itself, lead us to expect that this name, with its kindred derivatives, is never cable N*nl""""""^' ^PP^'^^ ^o any but the one proper God; because no other being has the attribute which it signifies. A further proof is found in the fact that it is never applied as a proper name, to any other being in Scrip- ture. The angel who appeared to Abraham, to Moses, and to Joshua, (Gen. xviii : i ; Exod. iii : 2-4; Josh, v : 13 ; vi : 3,) was evidently Jehovah- Christ. When Moses named the altar Jehovah-nissi, (Ex. xvii : 15,) he evidently no more dreamed of calling it Jehovah, than did Abram, when he called a place, (Gen. xxii : 14,) Jehovah-jireh. And when Aaron said con- cerning the worship of the calf: "To-morrow is the feast of Jehovah," he evidently considered the image only as represen- tative of the true God. But the last and crowning evidence that this name is always distinctive, is that God expressly reserves it to Himself. (See Exod. iii : 15 ; xv : 3 ; xx : 2 ; Ps. Ixxxiii : 18; Is. xlii : 8; xlviii : 2; Amos v : 8; ix : 6.) The chief value of this fact is not only to vindicate to God exclu- sively the attribute of self-existence ; but greatly to strengthen the argument for the divinity of Christ. When we find the incommunicable name given to Him, it is the strongest proof that he is very God.

*■ j~|^5 Lord, is the equivalent of the Greek Kuocoz. Its mean-

"^ ' ing is possession and dominion, expressed by

Other Names. ^.j-^g Latin Domiuits, which is its usual trans-

lation in the Vulgate, both in the Old and New Testaments, and, unfortunately, is the usual translation of Jehovah also. Hence has arisen the suppression of this name in our English version, where both are translated Lord ; and Jehovah is dis- tinguished only by having its translation printed in capitals, (LORD.)

"^ JW* ^^ ^'^^ ^ pliiralis excellentice , expressing omnipotence. Sometimes, as in Job v : 17, it stands by itself; sometimes, as in Gen. xvii : i, it is connected with ^^ (where it is rendered

" God Almighty.") This seems to be the name by which He entered into special covenant with Abram. It appears in the New Testament in its Greek form of navroxodzcoo^ Rev. i : 8. |1'' 7^ is said to be a verbal form of the verb rh";^ — ' to

ascend ;' and is rendered in Psalms ix : 3, and xxi : 8, " Most

High." This name signifies the exaltation of God's character.

ni^5!2V — hosts, is frequently used as an epithet qualifying

one of the other names of God, as pll^^^^j nlrT'-^Jehovah of

T ; T : hosts, (i. e., exercitnnm.) In this title, all the ranks or orders of creatures, animate and inanimate, are represented as subject to God, as the divisions of an army are to their commander.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 47

We come now to what may be called the communicable

. , , ,, names of God ; the same words are also

Communicable Names. 1 , r 1 j • • /^ 1

used to express false and imagmary Gods or

mighty men, as well as the true God. It is a striking peculiar- ity, that these alone are subjected to inflection by taking, on the construct state and the pronominal suffixes. They are ^^ ex- pressing the idea of might, and ni'!^^i^_ DTIt*^ singular and plural forms of the same root, probably derived from the verb

7*^ — to be strong. The singular form appears to be used chiefly in books of poetry. The plural, {a pliiralis niajestatis) is the common term for God, ^soc, Deus, expressing the simple idea of His eternity as our Maker, the God of creation and providence.

Gathering up these names alone, and comprehending their conjoined force according to the genius of Oriental language, we find that they compose by themselves an extensive revela- tion of God's nature. They clearly show Him to be self- existent, independent, immutable and eternal ; infinite in perfections, exalted in majesty, almighty in power, and of universal dominion. We shall find all of God implicitly, in these traits.

The Scriptures give to God a number of expressive meta- phorical titles (which some very inaccurately and needlessly would classify as His Metaphorical attributes, whereas they express, not attributes, but relations,) such as " King," " Law- giver," "Judge," "Rock," "Tower," "Deliverer," "Shepherd," " Husbandman," " Father," &c. These cannot be properly ■called His names.

God's attributes are those permanent, or essential, qualities of His nature, which He has made known to iLSShS^Si "= i" His word. When we say they are essen- tial qualities, we do not mean that they compose His substance, as parts thereof making up a whole ; still less, that they are members, attached to God, by which He acts. They are traits qualifying His nature always, and making it the nature it is. The question whether God's attri- butes are parts of His essence, has divided not only scholastics, Socinians and orthodox, but even Mohammedans ; affecting, as it does, the proper conception of His unity and simplicity. We must repudiate the gross idea that they are parts of His substance, or members attached to it ; for then He would be susceptible of division, and so of destruction. His substance is a unit, a monad. God's omniscience, e. g., is not something attached to His substance, whereby He knows ; but only a power or quality of knowing, qualifying His infinite substance itself. To avoid this gross error, the scholastics, (including many Protestants,) used to say that God's essence, and each or

148 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

every attribute, are identical ; i. e., that His whole essence is identical with each attribute. They were accustomed to say, that God's knowing is God, God's willing is God, or that the whole God is in every act ; and this they supposed to be neces- sary to a proper conception of His simplicity. This predication they carred so far as to say, that God's essence was simple in such sense as to exclude, not only all distinctions of parts, or composition, but all logical distinction of substance or essence, entity and quiddity, and to identify the essence and each attri- bute absolutely and in a sense altogether different from finite spirits.

Now, as before remarked, (Lect. IV, Nat. Theol.) if all

. this means anything more than is conceded

jec ions. ^^ ^-^^ l^g^ page, it is pantheism. The

charge there made is confirmed by this thought : That if the divine essence must be thus literally identified with each attri- bute, then the attributes are also identified with each other. There is no virtual, but only a nominal difference, between God's intellect and will. Hence, it must follow, that God effectuates all He conceives. This not only obliterates the vital distinction between His scieiitia simplex and scientia visionis ; but it also robs God of His freedom as a personal agent, and, if He is infinite by His omniscience, proves that the creation, or His works, is infinite. Here we have two of the very signatures of pantheism. But further : this identification of the distinct functions of intelligence and will violates our rational consciousness. There is a virtual difference between intellection, conation, and sensibility. Every man knows this, as to himself; and yet he believes in the unity of his spirit. It is equally, or more highly, true of God, The fact that He is an infinite spiritual unit, does not militate against this posi- tion, but rather facilitates our holding of it ; inasmuch as this infinitude accounts for the manifold powers of function exer- cised, better than our finite spirituality. It will be enough to add, in conclusion, that the fundamental law of our reason for- bids our really adopting this scholastic refinement. We can only know substance by its attributes. We can only believe an attribute to be, as we are able to refer it to its substance. This is the only relation of thought, in which the mind can think either. Were the reduction of substance and attribute actually made then, in good faith, the result would be incog- noscible to the human intellect.

God is infinite, and therefore incomprehensible, for our minds, in His essence. (Job xi : 7-9.) Now, since our only way of knowing His essence is as we know the attributes which (in our poor, shortcoming phrase) compose it, each of God's at- tributes and acts must have an element of the incomprehensible about it. (See Job xxvi : 14; Ps. cxxxix: 5, 6; Is. xl : 28; Rom. xi:,33.) One of the most important attainments for you

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ps. cxxxix: 5

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I49

to make, therefore, is for you to rid your minds for once and all, of the notion, that you either do or can comprehend the whole of what is expressed of any of God's attributes. Yet there is solid truth in our apprehension of them up to our limited measure — i. e, our conception of them, if scriptural, will be not essentially false, but only defective. Of this, we have this twofold warrant : First, that God has told us we are, in our own rational and moral attributes, formed in His image, so that His infinite, are the normae of our finite, essential qual- ities ; and second, that God has chosen such and such human words (as wisdom, rectitude, knowledge,) to express these divine attributes. The Bible does not use words dishonestly.

Another question has been raised by orthodox divines, (e. Are the Separate At- g-, Breckinridge,) whether since God's es- tributes of Infinite sence is infinite, we must not conceive of it Number? ^g having an infinite number of distinct

attributes. That is, whatever may be the revelations of Himself made by God in word and works, and however num- erous and glorious the essential attributes displayed therein, an infinite number of other attributes still remain, not dreamed of by His wisest creatures. The origin of this notion seems to be very clearly in Spinozism, which sought to identify the mul- tifarious universe and God, by making all the kinds, however numerous and diverse, modes of His attributes. Now, if the question is asked, can a finite mind prove that this circle of attributes revealed in the Scriptures which seem to us to pre- sent a God so perfect, so totiis teres et rotiuidiis, are the only distinct essential attributes His essence has, I shall freely answer, no. By the very reason that the essence is infinite and incomprehensible, it must follow that a finite mind can never know whether He has exhausted the enumeration of the dis- tinct qualities thereof or not, any more than He can fully comprehend one of them. But if it be said that the infinitude of the essence necessitates an infinite number of distinct attri- butes, I again say, no ; for would not one infinite attribute mark the essence as infinite ? Man cannot reason here. But the same attribute may exhibit numberless varied acts.

In most sciences, classification of special objects of study.

is of prime importance, for two reasons. The Classification of At- .jr t-i jj- v

tributes Study 01 resemblances and diversities, on

which classification proceeds, aids us in learn- ing the individuals classified more accurately. The objects are so exceedingly numerous, that unless general classes were formed, of which general propositions could be predicated, the memory would be overwhelmed, and the task of science endless. The latter reason has very slight application, in treating God's attributes ; because their known number is not great. The former reason applies very fairly. Many classifica- tions have been proposed, of v/hich I will state the chief.

150 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

(a.) The old orthodox classification was into communicable and incommunicable. Thus, omniscence anflnco^rTabt' was caUed a communicable attribute; because God confers on angels and men, not identically His omniscience, or a part of it, but an attribute of knowledge having a likenesss, in its lower degree, to His. His eternity is called an incommunicable attribute, because man has, and can have nothing like it, in any finite measure even. In some of the attributes, as God's independence and self-exis- tence, this distinction may be maintained ; but in many others to which it is usually applied, it seems of little accuracy. For instance, God's eternity may be stated as His infinite relation to duration. Man's temporal life is his finite relation to duration, and I see not but the analogy is about as close between this and God's eternity, as between man's little knowledge and His omniscience.

(b.) Another distribution, proposed by others, is into abso- lute and relative. God's immensity, for Absie!^^^''''' """"^ instance, is His absolute attribute; His omnipresence, His corresponding relative attribute. The distinction happens to be pretty accurate in this case, but it would be impossible to carry it through the whole, (c.) Another distrilaution is into natural and moral attri- butes ; the natural being those which qualify Into Natural and r' i» u • „ • sz -i. ■ -i. 1 ^ „

■^Iq^^I God s benig as an mhnite spirit merely — e. g.,

omniscience, power, ubiquity ; the moral, being those which qualify Him as a moral being, viz., righteous- ness, truth, goodness and holiness. This distinction is just and accurate, but the terms are bungling. For God's moral attri- butes are as truly natural (i. e., original,) as the others.

The distribution into negative and positive, and the Cartesian, into internal (intellect and will) and external, need not be more than mentioned. Dr. Breckinridge has proposed a more numerous classification, into primary, viz : those belonging to God as simply being: essential, viz: these qualifying His being as pure spirit ; natural, viz : those constituting Him a free and intelligent spirit ; moral, viz : those constituting Him a righteous being ; and consummate, being those perfections which belong to Him as the concurrent result of the preceding. The general objection is, that it is too artificial and complicated. It may be remarked, further, that the distinction of primary and essential attributes is unfounded. Common sense would tell us that we cannot know God as being, except as we know Him as spiritual being ; and dialectics would say that the consideration of the essentia must precede that of the esse. Further, the subordi- nate distribution of attributes under the several heads is confused.

The distribution which I would prefer, would conform

■c , n-^ -c .■ most nearly to that mentioned in the third Best ClassuicaUon. , . -^ , , 1 t-i itf i.

place, into moral and non-moral, ihe West-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I5I

minster Assembly, in this case as in many others, has given us the justest and most scientific view of this arrangement, in its Catechism : " God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justness, goodness and truth," This recognizes a real ground of distinction, after which the other tentative arrangements I have described, are evidently groping, with a dim and partial apprehension. There is one class of attributes, (wisdom, power, purity, justice, good- ness and truth,) specifically and immediately qualifying God's being. There is another class, (infinitude, eternity, immutabili- ty,) which collectively qualify all His other attributes and His being, and which may, therefore, be properly called His consummate attributes. God is, then, infinite, eternal and im- mutable in all His perfections. In a sense, somewhat similar, all His moral attributes may be said to be qualified by the consum- mate moral attribute, holiness — the crowning glory of the divine character.

3. What we conceive to be the best rational proofs Unit of God °^ God's unity and simplicity, were presented

in a previous lecture on Natural Theology ; we gave the preference to that from the convergent harmony of creation. Theologians are also accustomed to argue it from the necessity of His excellence (inconclusively,) from His infin- itude (more solidly.) But our best proof is the Word, which asserts His exclusive, as well as His numerical unity. Deut. vi: 4; 1st. Kings viii : 60; Is. xliv : 6; Markxii: 29-32; ist. Cor. viii : 4; Eph. iv : 6 ; Gal. iii ; 20; 1st. Tim. ii : S 5 Deut. xxxii: 39; Is. xliii : lO-ii; xxxvii : 16, &c.

The spirituality of God we argued rationally, first, from the

TT . r, . ., fact that He is an intelligent and voluntary

He IS a Spirit. _ 1 i-

nrst cause ; tor our understandmgs are, prop- erly speaking, unable to attribute these qualities to any other than spiritual substance. We found the same conclusion flowed necessarily from the fact, that God is the ultimate source of all force. It is implied in His immensity and omnipresence. He is Spirit, because the fountain of life. This also is confirmed by Scriptures emphatically. (See Deut. iv : 15-18; Ps. cxxxix: 7 ; Is. xxxi : 3 ; John iv : 24; 2d. Cor. iii : 17.) This evidence is greatly strengthened by the fact, that not only is the Father, but the divine nature in Christ, and the Holy Ghost, also are called again and again Spirit. (See, for the former, Rom. i : 4 ; Heb. ix : 14. For the latter, the title Holy Ghost, fhtbaa, everywhere in New Testament, and even in Old.) We may add, also, all those passages which declare God, although always most inti- timately present, to be beyoud the cognizance of all our senses. (Col. i: 15 ; 1st. Tim. i: 17 ; Heb. xi : 27.)

The simplicity of God, theologically defined, is not express-

Tj. c- T •*, ly asserted in the Bible. But it follows as a

rlis bimplicity. •' . ....

necessary mterence, from His spintuahtw

152 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Our consciousness compels us to conceive of our own spirits as absolutely simple ; because the consciousness is always such, and the whole conscious subject, ego, is in each conscious state indivisibly. The very idea of dividing a thought, an emotion, a volition, a sensation, mechanically into parts, is wholly irrelevant to our conception of them ; it is impossible. Hence, as God tells us that our spirits were formed in the image of His, and as He has employed this word, nuti)ij.a, to express the nature of His substance, we feel authorized to conceive of it as also simple. But there are still stronger reasons ; for (a,) Other- wise God's absolute unity would be lost, (b.) He would not be incapable of change, (c.) He might be disintegrated, and so, destroyed.

We are well aware that many representations occur in Scripture which seem to speak of God as having a material form, (e. g., inthe theophanies) and parts, as hands, face, &c., &c. The latter are obviously only representations adapted to our faculties, to set before us the different modes of God's workings. The seeming forms, angelic or human, in which He appeared to the patriarchs, were but the symbols of His presence.

4. The distinction between God's immensity and omni-

T -^ , ^ presence has already been stated. Both are

Immensity and Om- . j • o • , -r-i ^

nipresence. asserted m bcnptures. The former m 1st.

Kings viii : 27, and parallel in Chron. ; Is.

Ixvi: I. The latter in Ps. cxxxix : 7-10; Acts xvii : 27-28;

Jer. xxiii : 24 ; Heb. 1:3. It follows, also, from what is asserted

of God's works of creation and providence, and of His

infinite knowledge. (See Theol. Lect. 4th.)

5. God's eternity has already been defined, as an existence Eternity. absolutely without beginning, without end,

and without succession; and the rational evidences thereof have been presented. As to the question, whether God's thoughts and purposes are absolutely uncon- nected with all successive duration, we saw, when treating this question in Natural Theology, good reason to doubt. The grounds of doubt need not be repeated. But there is a more popular sense, in which the pimctiim stans, may be predicated of the divine existence, that past and future are as distinctly and immutably present with the Divine Mind, as the present. This is probably indicated by the striking phrase. Is. Ivii : 15 and more certainly, by Exod. iii : 14, compared with John viii : 58 ; by Ps. xc : 4, and 2d Peter, iii : 8. That God's being has neither beginning nor end is stated in repeated places — as Gen. xxi : 33 ; Ps. xc : I, 2 ; cii : 26-28 ; Is. xli : 4 ; ist. Tim. i : 17 ; Heb .i : 12 : Rev. i : 8.

That God is immutable in His essence, thoughts, volitions, 6. Immutability. ^"^^ ft His perfections, has been already ar- gued from His perfection itself, from His in-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 1 53

•dependence and sovereignty, from His simplicity and from His blessedness. This unchangeableness not only means that He is devoid of all change, decay, or increase of substance : but that His knowledge. His thoughts and plans, and His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. This immu- tability of His knowledge and thoughts flows from their infinitude. For, being complete from eternity, there is nothing new to be added to His knowledge. His nature remaining the same, and the objects present to His mind remaining forever unchanged, it is clear that His active principles and purposes must remain for- ever in the same state ; because there is nothing new to Him to awaken or provoke new feelings or purposes.

Our Confession says, that God hath neither parts nor pas- sions. That He has something analagous to what are called in man active principles, is manifest, for He wills and acts ; there- fore He must feel. But these active principles must not be con- ceived of as emotions, in the sense of ebbing and flowing ac- cesses of feeling. In other words, they lack that agitation and rush, that change from cold to hot, and hot to cold, which con- stitute the characteristics of passion in us. They are, in God, an ineffable, fixed, peaceful, unchangeable calm, although the springs of volition. That such principles may be, although in- comprehensible to us, we may learn from this fact : That in the wisest and most sanctified creatures, the active principles have least of passion and agitation, and yet they by no means become inefficacious as springs of action — e. g., moral indignation in the holy and wise parent or ruler. That the above conception of the calm immutability of God's active principles is necessary, appears from the following : The agitations of literal passions are incompatible with His blessedness. The objects of those feelings are as fully present to the Divine Mind at one time as another; so that there is nothing to cause ebb or flow. And that ebb would constitute a change in Him. When, therefore, the Scriptures speak of God as becoming wroth, as repenting, as indulging His fury against His adversaries, in connection with some particular event occurring in time, we must understand them anthropopathically. What is meant is, that the outward manifestations • of His active principles were as though these feelings then arose.

God's immutability, as thus defined, is abundantly asserted in Scriptures. (Numb, xxiii : 19; Ps. cii: 26; xxxiii : ii; ex: 4; Is. xlvi: 10; Mai. iii : 6; Jas. i : 17; Heb. vi : 17; xiii : 8.)

This attribute has been supposed to be inconsistent with

the incarnation of the Godhead in Christ; Objections Answered. ^^.^^ q^^,^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ -^ ^-^^^^ ^^^ especially

His creation ; and with His reconciliation with sinners upon their repentance. To the first, it is enough to reply, that neither was God's substance changed by the incarnation ; for there was no confusion of natures in the person of Christ, nor was His

154 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

plan modified ; for He always intended and foresaw it. To the second, the purpose to create precisely all that is created, was from eternity to God, and to do it just at the time He did. Had He not executed that purpose when the set time arrived, there would have been the change. To the third, I reply, the change IS not in God : but in the sinner. For God to change His treat- ment as the sinner's character changes, this is precisely what His immutability dictates.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Col. i: 15
  2. Heb. 1:3
  3. Ps. cii: 26

SYLLABUS

1. What is the Scriptural account of God's knowledge and wisdom? What the meaning of His simple, His free, His mediate knowledge ? Does God's free knowl- edge extend to the future acts of free-agents ?

Review of Breckinridge's Theology by the author. Turrettin, Loc. iii. Qu. 12, 13. Dick, Lect. 21, 22. Watson's Theo. Inst., pt. ii, ch. 4 and ch. 28, ^ 3. Dr. Chr. Knapp, ^ xxii.

2. Do the Scriptures teacli God to be a voluntary being? What limitation, if any, on His will ? Prove that He is omnipotent. Does God govern free-agents om- nipotently ?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 14, 21, 22. Dick, Lect. 23. Watson, Theo. Inst. pt. ii, ch. 28, § 3, 4. Knapp, § xxi.

3. What is the distinction between God's decretive an^ preceptive will ? Is it just? Between His antecedent and consequent will ? Are His volitions ever condi- tioned on anything out of Himself?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 15, 16, 17. Knapp, § xxv and xxvi.

4. Is God's will the sole source of moral distinctions? Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 18.

' I ^HE difference between knowledge and wisdom has been

already defined as this : knowledge is the simple cognition

of things ; wisdom is the selecting and subor-

I God's Knowledge ^inating of them to an end, as means. Not

anci w istiom. o r 1 •

only must there be the power of selectmgand subordinating means to an end, to constitute wisdom : but to a worthy end. Wisdom, therefore, is a higher attribute than knowledge, involving especially the moral perfections. For when one proceeds to the selection of an end, there is choice ; and the moral element is introduced. Wisdom and knowledge are the attributes which characterize God as pure mind, as a being of infinite and essential intelligence. That God's knowl- edge is vast, we argued from His spirituality, from His creation of other minds ; (Ps. xciv : 7-10,) from His work of creation in genera], from His omnipresence ; (Ps. cxxxix : 1-12,) and from His other perfections of power, and (especially) of goodness, truth and righteousness, to the exercise of which knowledge is constantly essential. Of His wisdom, the great natural proof is the wonderful, manifold and beneficent contrivances in His

OF LECTURES IN' THEOLOGY. I 55

works of creation (Ps. cxiv : 24,) and providence. That God's knowledge is distinct, and in every case intuitive, never deduc- tive, seems to flow from its perfection. We only know sub- stances by their attributes ; God must know them in their true substance : because it was His creative wisdom which clothed each substance with its essential qualities. We only learn many things by inference from other things ; God knows all things in- tuitively ; because there can be no succession in His knowledge, admitting of the relation of premise and conclusion.

We may show the infinite extent of God's knowledge, by viewing it under several distributions. He mniscience. perfectly knows Himself. (iCor. ii: ii.) He

has all the past perfectly before His mind, so that there is no room for any work of recollection. (Is. xli ; 22; xliii : 9.) This is also shown by the doctrine of a universal judgment. (Eccl. xii : 14; Luke viii : 17; Rom. ii : 16; iii : 6; xiv : 10 ; Matt, xii : 36; Ps. Ivi : 8; Mai. iii: 16; Rev. xx : 12; Jer. xvii : i,)

All the acts and thoughts of all His creatures, which occur in the present, are known to Him as they occur. (Gen. xvi : 13; Prov. XV : 3 ; Ps. cxlvii : 4 and 5 ; xxxiv : 15 ; Zech. iv: 10; Prov.'v: 21; Job xxxiv: 22; Luke xii: 6; Heb. iv: 13.) Especially do the Scriptures claim for God a full and perfect knowledge of man's thoughts, feelings and purposes — however concealed in the soul. (Job xxxiv: 21; Ps. cxxxiv : 4; Jer. xvii: 10; Jno. ii : 25; Ps. xliv : 21, &c.)

God also knows, and has always known, all that shall ever occur in the future. (See Is. xiii : 9 ; Acts xv : 18.) Of this, all God's predictions likewise afford clear evidence. The particu- larity of God's foreknowledge even of the most minute things,, maybe seen, well defended. Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 12, § 4-6.

Or, adopting another distribution, we may assert that God knows all the possible and all the actual. It WhatT^ ^'"'P^"''- is His knowledge of the former, which is called by the scholastics scientia simplicis in- telligentics. Its objecfis not that which God has determined to effectuate, (the knowledge of which is called " free" or scientia visionis ;) but that which His infinite intelligence sees might be effectuated, if He saw fit to will it. (The scholastics call it His knowledge of that which has essentia, but not esse.) That God has an infinite knowledge of possibles, other than those He pur- poses to actualize, no one can doubt, who considers the fecun- dity of this intelligence, a'^ exhibited in His actual works. Can it be, that those works have exhausted all God's conceptions ? Further : God's wise selection of means and ends, implies that conceptions existed in the divine mind, other than those He has embodied in creation or act, from among which He chose.

The Formalist Divines of the school of Wolff, (as repre- sented by Stapfer, Bulfinger, &c.,) make much TheodiceaAence. ^^ ^^^^ distinction between God's knowledge

156 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of the possible and the actual, to build a defence of God's holi- ness and benevolence, in the permission of evil. Say they ; Scientia simplicis iiitelligentics, is not free in God. He is impel- led by a metaphysical necessity, to conceive of the possible according to truth. It is God's conception which generates its essentia ; but about this, God exercises no voluntary, and there- fore, no moral act of His nature. God's will is only concerned in bringing the thing out of posse into esse. But the esse changes nothing in the essentia ; determines nothing about the quality of the thing actualized. Therefore God's will is not morally responsible for any evil it produces. This pretended argument scarcely needs exposure. It is Realistic in its whole structure. The plain answer is, that the thing or event only in posse, is non-existent with all its evils. God's will is certainly concerned in bringing it out of posse and esse. And unless God is bound by fate. His will therein is free. It is, however, perfect- ly correct, to say that the object of God's free knowledge owes its futurition primarily to His will. Had He not purposed its production, it would never have been produced ; for He is sove- reign first cause. Now, if He willed it, of course He foreknew it.

This leads us to the oft mooted question : whether acts con- God knows all acts tingent, and especially those of rational free- of free agents with a agents, are objects of God's scientia visionis, scientia visionis. qj. q^ ^ scientia media. This is said to have

been first invented by the Jesuit Molina, in order to sustain their semi-Pelagian doctrine of a self-determining will, and of conditional election. By mediate foreknowledge, they mean a kind intermediate between God's knowledge of the possible (for these acts are possessed of futurition), and the scientia visionis : for they suppose the futurition and foreknowledge of it is not the result of God's will, but of the contingent second -cause. It is called mediate again : because they suppose God arrives at it, not directly by knowing His own purpose to effect it, but indirectly ; by His infinite insight into the manner in which the contingent second cause will act, under given out- ward circumstances, forseen or produced by God. The existence of such a species of knowledge the Calvinists deny in toto. To clear the way for this discussion, I remark :

First. That God has a perfect and universal foreknowledge of all the volitions of free-agents. The Scriptures expressly assert it. (Ezek. xi: 5 ; Is. xlviii : 8; Ps. cxxxix : 3, 4 ; i Sam. xxiii : 12; Jno. xxi : 18; I Jno. iii : 20; Acts xv : 18.) It is equally implied in God's attribute of heart-searching knowl- edge, which He claims for Himself. (Rev. ii : 21, et passim?) It is altogether necessary to God's knowledge and control of all the future into which any creature's volition enters as a part of the immediate or remote causation. And this department of the future is so vast, so important in God's government, that if He could not foreknow and control it, He would be one of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 5/

the most baffled, confused, and harassed of all beings; and His government one of perpetual uncertainties, failures, and partial expedients. Last : God's predictions of such free acts of His creatures, and His including them in His decrees, in so many cases, show beyond dispute that He has some certain way to foreknow them. See every prophecy in Scripture where human or angelic acts enter. Where the prediction is positive, and proves true, the foreknowledge must have been certain. For these reasons, the impiety of early Socinians in denying. God even a universal scientia media, is to be utterly repudiated. In discussing the question whether God's foreknowledge

of future acts of free-agents is mediate in Its^rJr?'"''^ ^'^'^- the sense defined, I would beg you to note,.

that the theological virus of the proposition, is in this point : That in such cases, the foreknowledge of the act precedes the purpose of God as to it. i. e.. They say God purposes, because He forsees it, instead of saying with us, that He only forsees because He purposes to permit it. Against this point of the doctrine, Turrettin's argument is just and conclusive. Of this the sum, abating His unnecessary distinctions, is : (a.)- These acts are either possible, or future, so that it is impossible to withdraw them from one or the other of the two classes of God's knowledge. His simple, or His actual, (b.) God cannot certainly foreknow an act, unless its futurition is certain. If His foreknowing it made it certain, then His knowledge involves foreordination. If the connection with the second cause producing it made it certain, then it does not belong at all to the class of contingent events ! And the causative con- nection being certain, when God foreordained the existence of the second cause, He equally ordained that of the effect. But there are but the two sources, from which the certainty of its- futurition could have come, (c.) The doctrine would make God's knowledge and power dependent on contingent acts of His creatures; thus violating God's perfections and sovereignty, (d.) God's election of men would have to be in every case conditioned on His foresight of their conduct, (what semi- Pelagians are seeking here.) But in one case at least, it is unconditioned ; that of His election of sinners to redemption. (Rom. ix : i6, &c.)

But in a metaphysical point of view, I cannot but think

that Turrettin has made unnecessary and

To God nothing is grroncous concessions. The future acts of contingent.

free agents fall under the class of contmgent

effects : i. e., as Turrettin concedes the definition, of effects

such that the cause being in existence, the effect may, or may

not follow.* (He adopts this, to sustain his scholastic doctrine

of immediate physical conciirsiis: of which more, when we

* For instance : the dice box being shaken and inverted, the dice may, or may not fall with their first faces uppermost

158 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

treat the doctrine of Providence.) But let me ask : Has this distinction of contingent effects any place at all, in God's mind ? Is it not a distinction relevant only to our ignorance ? An effect is, in some cases, to us contingent; because our par- tial blindness prevents our foreseeing precisely what are the present concurring causes, promoting, or preventing, or whether the things supposed to be, are real causes, under the given cir- cumstances. I assert that wherever the causative tie exists at all, its connections with its effect is certain, (metaphysically necessary.) If not, it is no true cause at all. There is, there- Fore, to God, no such thing, in strictness of speech, as a contingent effect. The contingency, (in popular phrase, uncer- tainty,) pertains not to the question whether the adequate cause will act certainly, if present ; but whether it is certainly present. To God, therefore, whose knowledge is perfect, there is literally no such thing as a contingent effect. And this is true concern- ing the acts of free-agents, emphatically ; they are effects. Their second cause is the agent's own desires as acting upon the objective inducements presented by Providence ; the caus- ative connection is certain, in many cases, to our view; in all cases to God's. Is not this the very doctrine of Turrettin himself, concerning the will? The acts of free agents, then, arise through second causes.

The true statement of the matter, then, should be this: The objects of God's scientia visionis, or free thiIkno^v^Sg^°'' "^ knowledge, fall into two great classes: (a.) Those which God effectuates /rr se, without any second cause, (b.) Those which He effectuates through their natural second causes. Of the latter, many' are physical — e, g., the rearing of vegetables through seeds; and to the latter belong all natural volitions of free agents, caused by the subjective dispositions of their nature, acting on the objective circumstances of their providential position. Now iaall effects which God produces through second causes, His foreknowl- edge, involving as it does, a fore-ordination, is in a certain sense relative. That is, it embraces those second causes, as means, as well as the effects ordained through them. (And thus it is that " the liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away, but rather established.") Further, the fore- knowledge which purposes to produce a certain effect by means of a given second cause, must, of course, include a thorough knowledge of the nature and power of the cause. That that cause derived that nature from another part or act of God's purpose, surely is no obstacle to this. Here, then, is a proper sense, in which it may be said that God's foresight of a given effect is relative — i. e., through His knowledge of the nature and power and presence of its natural, or second cause. May not relative knowledge be intuitive and positive ? Several of our axioms are truths of relation. Yet, it by no means fol-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 59

lows, therefore, as the semi-Pelagian would wish, that such a foreknowledge is antecedent to God's preordination concerning it. Because God, in foreordaining the presence and action of the natural cause, according to His knowledge of its nature, does also efficaciously foreordain the effect.

When, therefore, it is said that God's foreknowledge of the

volitions of free-agents is relative in this

God's Relative Knowl- ^^^^^ . ^ g through His infinite insight into

the way their dispositions will naturally act under given circumstances, placed around them by His inten- tional providence, theCalvinist should by no means flout it; but accept, under proper limitations. But the term mediate is not accurate, to express this orthodox sense; because it seems to imply derivation subsequent, in the part of God's cognition said to be mediated, from the independent will of the creature. The Calvinist is the very man to accept this view of a relative foreknowledge with consistency. For, on the theory of the semi-Pelagian, such a foreknowledge by insight is impossible ; volitions being uncaused, according to them ; but on our theory, it is perfectly reasonable, volitions, according to us, being cer- tain, or necessary effects of dispositions. And I repeat, we need not feel any hyper-orthodox fear that this view will infringe the perfection of God's knowledge, or sovereignty, in His foresight of the free acts of His creatures ; it is the very way to establish them, and yet leave the creature responsible. For if God is able to foresee that the causative connection, between the second cause and its effect, is certain ; then, in decreeing the presence of the cause and the proper external conditions of its action. He also decrees the occurrence of the effect. And, that volitions are not contingent, but certain effects, is the very thing the Calvinist must contend for, if he would be consistent. The history of this controversy on scientia media presents another instance of the rule ; that usually mis- chievous errors have in them a certain modicum of valuable truth. Without this, they would not have strength in them to run, and do mischief.

We should apprehend no real distinction between God's 2. God's will and ^'^^^ ^^^ His power; because in our spirits, to power omnipotent over will is identical with the putting forth of free agents also. power; and because Scripture represents all

God's working as being done by a simple volition. Ps. xxxiii : 9 ; Gen. i : 3. That God is a free and voluntary being, we in- ferred plainly from the selection of contrivances to produce His ends, and of ends to be produced ; for these selections are acts of choice. He is Universal Cause, and Spirit. What is volition but a spirit's causation ? Of His vast power, the works of cre- ation and providence are sufficient, standing proofs. And the successive displays brought to our knowledge have been so nu- merous and vast, that there seems to reason herself every prob-

l6o • SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ability His power is infinite. There must be an inexhaustible reserve, where so much is continually put forth. Finally, were He not omnipotent, He would not be very God. The being, who- ever it is, which defies His power would be His rival. The Scrip- tures also repeatedly assert His omnipotence. See Gen. xvii : i; Rev. i: 8; Jer. xxvii : 17; Matt, xix : 26; Luke i: 37; Rev. xix: 6; Matt, vi : 13. They say with equal emphasis, that God exercises full sovereignty over free agents, securing the performance by them, and upon them, of all that He pleases, yet consistently with their freedom and responsibility. Dan. iv : 35; Prov. xxi: i; Ps. Ixxvi : 10; Phil, ii: 13; Rom. ix : 19; Eph. I ; II, &c. The same truth is evinced by every prediction in which God has positively foretold what free agents should do ; for had He not some way of securing the result, He would not have predicted it positively. Here may be cited the histories of Pharaoh. Exod. iv : 21; vi : i: of Joseph, Gen. xiv : 5; of the Assyrian king. Is. x: 5-7; of Cyrus, Is. xiv: i ; of Judas, Acts ii : 23, &c., &c. It is objected by those of Pelagian ten- dencies, that some such instances of control do not prove that God has universal sovereignty over all free agents ; for they may be lucky instances, in which God managed to cause them to carry out His will by some expedient. To say nothing of the texts quoted above, it may be answered, that these cases, with others that might be quoted, are too numerous, too remote, and too strong, to be thus accounted for. Further, if God could control one, He can another ; there being no different powers to overcome ; and there will hardly be a prouder or more stub- born case than that of Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar. A parallel answer may be made to the evasion from the argument for God's foreknowledge of man's volitions, from His predictions of them. Once more : if God is not sovereign over free agents. He is of course not sovereign over any events dependent on the volitions of free agents, either simultaneous or previous. But those events make up a vast multitude, and include all the affairs of God's Government which most interest us and concern Plis providence. If He has not this power. He is? indeed, a poor dependence for the Christian, and prayer for His protection is little worth. The familiar objection will, of course, be suggested, that if God gov- erns men sovereignly, then they are not free agents. The dis- cussion of it will be postponed till we treat of Providence. Enough meantime, to say, that we have indubitable evidence of both ; of the one from consciousness, of the other from Scrip- ture and reason. Yet, that these agents were responsible and guilty, see Is. x: 12; Acts i: 25. Their reconciliation may transcend, but does not violate reason — witness the fact that man may often influence his fellow-man so decisively as to be able to count on it, and yet that act be free, and re- sponsible.

We have seen (Natural Theology) that God's omnipotence

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. l6l

is not to be understood, notwithstanding the Omnipotence does not g^j^^^j^ assertions of Scripture, that all do self-contradictions. , . -"^ ., , . . ^t-

things are possible with Him, as a power to

do contradictions. It has also been usually said by Theo- logians that God's wil! is limited, not only by the necessary con- tradiction, but by His own perfections. The meaning is cor- rect ; the phrase is incorrect. God's will is not limited ; for those perfections as much ensure that He will never wish, as that He will never do, those incompatible things. He does abso- lutely all that He wills. But thus explained, the qualification is fully sustained by Scripture. 2 Tim. ii : 13; Tit. i : 2; Heb. vi: 18 ; Jas. 1:13.

I have argued that God's will is absolutely executed over all free agents ; and yet Scripture is full of

,^j Mf^I-^'-^'^'^- u^j declarations that sinful men and devils dis- vealed will distinguished. -n 1 -r-i i_ u ^i r

obey His will ! There must be, therefore, a distinction between His secret and revealed. His decretive and preceptive will. All God's will must be, in reality, a single, eter- nal, immutable act. The distinction, therefore, is one necessi- tated by our limitation of understanding, and relates only to the manifestation of the parts of this will to the creature. By God's decretive will, we mean that will by which He fore- ordains whatever comes to pass. By His preceptive, that by which He enjoins on creatures what is right and proper for them to do. The decretive we also call His secret will : because it is for the most part (except as disclosed in some predictions and the effectuation) retained in His own breast. His preceptive we call His revealed will, because it is published to man for his guidance. Although this distinction is beset with plausible quibbles, yet every man is impelled to make it ; for otherwise, either alternative is odious and absurd. Say that God has no secret decretive will, and He wishes just what He commands and nothing more, and we represent Him as a Being whose desires are perpetually crossed and baffled : yea, trampled on ; the most harassed, embarrassed, and impotent Being in the uni- verse. Deny the other part of our distinction, and you repre- sent God as acquiescing in all the iniquities done on earth and in hell. Again, Scripture clearly establishes the distinction. Witness all the texts already quoted to show that God's sove- reignty overrules all the acts of men to His purposes. Add. Rom. xi: 33, to end : Prov. xvi: 4. See also Deut. xxix ; 29. Special cases are also presented, (the most emphatic possible,) in which God's decretive Avill differed from His preceptive will, as wto the same individuals. See Exodus iv: 21-23; Ezekiel iii : 7, with xviii : 31. These authentic cases offer an impregnable bulwark against Arminian objections ; and prove that it is not Calvinism, but Inspiration, which teaches the distinction.

The objections are, that this distinction represents God as

l62 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

either insincere in His precepts to His crea- lec ons. tures, or else, as having His own vohtions at

war among themselves : and that, by making His secret will de- cretive of sinful acts as well as holy, we represent Him as un- holy. The seeming inconsistency is removed by these consider- ations. " God's preceptive will." In this phrase, the word will is used in a different sense. For, in fact, while God wills the utterance of the precepts, the acts enjoined are not objects of God's volition, save in the cases where they are actually em- braced in His decretive will. All the purposes which God carries out by permitting and overruling the evil acts of His creatures, are infinitely holy and proper for Him to carry out. It may be right for Him to permit what it would be wrong for us to do, and therefore wrong for Him to command us to do. Not only is it righteous and proper for an infinite Sovereign to withhold from His creatures, in their folly, a part of His in- finite and wise designs; but it is absolutely unavoidable; for their minds being finite, it is impossible to make them compre- hend God's infinite plan. Seeing, then, that He could not give them His whole immense design as the rule of their conduct, what rule was it most worthy of His goodness and holiness to reveal? Evidently, the moral law, requiring of them what is righteous and good for them. There is no insincerity in God's giving this law, although He may, in a part of the cases, secretly determine not to give unmerited grace to constrain men to keep it. Remember, also, that if even in these cases men would keep it, God would not fail to reward them according to His promise. But God, foreknowing that they would freely choose not to keep it, for wise reasons determines to leave them to their perverse choice, and overrule it to His holy designs. I freely admit that the divine nature is inscrutable ; and that mystery must always attach to the divine purposes. But there is a just sense in which a wise and righteous man might say, that he sincerely wished a given subject of his would not transgress, and yet that, foresee- ing his perversity, he fully purposed to permit it, and carry out his purposes thereby. Shall not the same thing be possible for God in a higher sense?

There is a sense in which some parts of God's will may be

said to be antecedent to, and some parts con- seq^ienT\m ^""^ ^°"" sequent to His foresight of man's acts— i. e..

as our finite minds are compelled to conceive them. Thus : although God's will acts by one, eternal, com- prehensive, simultaneous act, we cannot conceive of His deter- mination to permit man's fall, except as a consequence of His prior purpose to create man ; (because if none were created, there would be none to fall ;) and of His decree to give a Re- deemer, as consequent on His foresight of the fall. But the Arminian Scholastics have perverted this simple distinction thus, making the antecedent act of God's will precede the view had

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 63

by God of the creature's action ; and thq consequent, following upon, and produced by that foresight ; e. g., the purpose to create man was antecedent, to punish his sin consequent. I object, that this notion really violates the unity and eternity of God's volition. 2d. It derogates from the independence of God's will, making it determined by, instead of determining, the creature's conduct. 3d. It overlooks the fact that all the parts of the chain, the means as well as the end, the second causes as well as consequences, are equally and as early determined by, and embraced in, God's comprehensive plan. As to a sequence and dependency between the parts of God's decree, the truth, so far as man's mind is capable of comprehending, seems to be this : That the decree is in fact one, in God's mind, and has no succession ; but we being incapable of apprehending it save by parts, are compelled to conceive God, as having regard in one part of His eternal plan to a state of facts destined by Him to proceed out of another part of it, This remark will have no little importance when we come to view supralapsarianism.

God's purposes are all independent of any condition ^ ,, ■^^ u ^ . extcmal to Himself in this sense ; that they

God s will absolute. , , . , ' n-i

are not caused by anything ao extra. Ihe

things decreed may be conditioned on other parts of His own purpose, in that they embrace means necessary to ends. While the purposes have no cause outside of God, they doubtless all have wise and sufficient reasons, known to God.

Some, even of Calvinists, have seemed to find this* question very intricate, if we may judge by their dif- first rule ofrighr? ^ ferences. Let us discriminate clearly then ; that by God's will here we mean his volition in the specific sense, and not will in the comprehensive sense of the whole conative powers. The question is perspicuously stated in this form. Are the precepts right merely because God commands, or does He command, because they are in themselves right? The latter is the true answer. Let it be understood again ; that God's precepts are, for us, an actual, a perfect, and a supreme rule of right. No Christian disputes this. For God's moral title as our Maker, Owner and Redeem- er, with the perfect holiness of His nature, makes it unquestiona- ble, that our rectitude is always in being and doing just what He requires. Let it be understoood again ; that in denying that God's volition to command is the mere and sole first source of right, we do not dream of any superior personal will, earlier than God's and more authoritative than His, instructing and compel- ling Him to command right. Of course, we repeat, no one holds this ; God is the first, being the eternal author- ity, and He is absolutely supreme. Does one ask : w^iere, then, did this moral distinction inhere and abide, before God had given any expression to it, in time, in any leg- islative acts ? The answer is : In the eternal principles of His

164 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

moral essence, which, Hke His physical, is self-existent and eternally necessary.

Having cleared the ground, I support my answer thus : ^ 1st. God has an eternal and inalienable moral

claim over His moral creatures, not arising out of any legislative act of His, but immediately out of the relation of creature to Creator, and possession to its absolute Owner. For instance : elect angels owed love and honor to God, before He entered into any covenant of works with them. This right is as unavoidable and indestructible as the very- relation of Creator and rational creature. This moral depen- dence is as original as the natural dependence of being. Hence, it is indisputable that there is a moral title more original than any preceptive act of God's will. 2d. We cannot but think that these axioms of ethical principle are as true of God's rectitude as of man's: (a) That God's moral volitions are not uncaused, but have their (subjective) motives, (b) That the morality of the volitions is the morality of their intentions. We must meet the question there, as to God, just as to any rational agent. What is the regulative cause of those right volitions ? There is no other answer but this : God's eternally holy dispositions ; His necessary - moral perfections. Now, then, if a given precept of God is right, His act of will in legislating it must be right, and must have its moral quality. If this act of divine will is such, it must be because * its subjective motives have right moral quality. Thus we are, per force, led to recognize moral qualities in something logically prior to the preceptive will of God, viz: in His own moral perfections. 3d. Otherwise, this result must follow, which is an outrage to the practical reason : That God's preceptive will might, conceivably, have been the reverse of what it is, and then the vilest things would have been right, and holiest things vile. 4th. There would be no ground for the distinction between the " perpetual moral" and the " temporary positive " command. All would be merely positive. But again : the practical reason cannot but see a difference between the prohibition of lying, and the prohibition of eating bacon ! 5th. No argument could be constructed for the necessity of satisfaction for guilt, in order to righteous pardon ; so that (as will be seen) our theory of redemption would be reduced to the level of Socinian error. And, last, God's sovereignty would not be moral. His "might would make His right."

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Job xxxiv: 22
  2. Luke xii: 6
  3. Heb. iv: 13
  4. Job xxxiv: 21
  5. Ezek. xi: 5
  6. Rev. i: 8
  7. Luke i: 37
  8. Rev. xix: 6
  9. Acts i: 25
  10. Jas. 1:13
  11. Rom. xi: 33
  12. Prov. xvi: 4
  13. Exodus iv: 21-23

SYLLABUS

1. Define and prove from Scripture God's absolute and relative, His distributive and punitive justice.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 19. Dick, Lect. 25. Ridgeley, Body of Divinity, Qu. 7, p. 164. Watson's Theol. Institutes, pt. ii, ch. 7, ^, (i.) Chr. Knapp, § 30, 31-

2. What is God's goodness ? What the relation of it to His love, His grace and His mercy ? What Scriptural proof that He possesses these attributes ?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 20. Dick, Lect. 24. Ridgeley, Qu. 7, p. 168, &c. Charnock, Disc, xii, g 2, 3, (pp. 255 to 287.) Watson's Theol. Inst., pt. ii, ch. 6. Knapp, § 28, 2.

3. Define and prove God's truth and faithfulness, and defend from objections. Dick, Lect. 26. Ridgeley, Qu. 7, p. 1S6, &c. Watson's Theol. Inst. pt. ii. ch. 7, (2.).

4. 'Vhat is the holiness of God? Prove it.

Dick, Lect. 27. Charnock, Disc, xi, § i, (pp. 135-144.) Ridgeley, Qu. 7, p. 160, &c.

5. Prove God's infinitude.

Turrettin, Loc iii, Qu. 8, 9. Thornwell, Vol. i, Lect. 4.

AX/'E have now reached thai which is the most glorious, and at the same time, the most important class of God's

attributes ; those which qualify Him as an Go'S'Tl'efiw''" infinitely perfect moral Being. These are

the attributes which regulate His will, and are, therefore, so to speak, His practical perfections. Without these, His infinite presence, power, and wisdom would be rather objects of terror and fear, than of love and trust. Indeed, it is impossible to conceive how the horror of a rational being could be more thoroughly awakened, than by the idea of wicked omnipotence wielding all possible powers for the ruin or promotion of our dearest interests, yet uncontrolled alike by created force, and by moral restraints. The forlorn despair of the wretch who is left alone in the solitude of the ocean, to buffet its innumerable waves, would be a faint shadow of that which would settle over a universe in the hands of such a God. But blessed be His name. He is declared, by His works and word, to be a God of complete moral perfections. And this is the ground on which the Scriptures base their most frequent and stronryest claims to the praise and love of His creatures. His power, His knowledge, His wisdom. His immutability are glorious ; but the glory and loveliness of His moral attributes excelleth.

God's distinct moral attributes may be counted as three —

His justice, His goodness, and His truth —

Enumeration. ^i .1 • • tt-

these three concurnng m His consummate

moral attribute, holiness.

165

i66

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

God's absolute justice is technically defined by theologians

_ . , ^ , as the general rectitude of character, intrinsic I. Justice defined. . yj. ° .,, jj. . . . '. . .

in hlis own will. His relative justice is the

acting out of that rectitude towards His creatures. His distrib- utive justice is the quality more precisely indicated when we call Him a just God, which prompts Him to give to ever>^ one his due. His punitive justice is that phase of His distributive justice which prompts Him always to allot its due punishment to sin. No Christian theologian denies to God the quality of absolute justice, nor of a relative, as far as His general dealings with His creatures go. We have seen that even reason infers it clearly from the authority of conscience in man; from the instinctive pleasure accompanying well-doing, and pain attached to ill-doing ; from the general tendency which God's providence has established, by which virtue usually promotes individual and social well-being, and vice destroys them ; and from many providential retributions where crimes are made to become their own avengers. And Scripture declares His rectitude in too many places and forms, to be disputed, e. g., Ps. Ixxi : 15 ; Ezra ix: 15 ; Ps. xix : 9; cxlv: 17; Rev. xvi : 7, &c., &c., Ps. Ixxxix: 14; Hab. i: 13.

It is upon the punitive justice of God that the difference Is God's punitive arises. As the establishing of this will estab- justice essential ? Dif- Hsh a fortiori, the general righteousness of ferent theones. q^^.^ dealings, we shall continue the discus-

sion on this point. The Socinians deny that retributive justice is an essential or an immutable attribute of God. They do not, indeed, deny that God punishes sin ; nor that it would be right for Him to do so in all cases, if He willed it ; but they deny that there is anything in His perfections to ensure His always willing it, as to every sin. Instead of believing that God's righteous character impels Him unchangeably to show His dis- pleasure against sin in this w^ay, they hold that, in those cases where He wills to punish it, He does it merely for the sinner's reformation, or the good of His government. The new school of divines also hold that while God's purpose to punish sin is uniform and unchangeable, it is only that this form of preven- tion against the mischiefs of sin may be diligently employed, for the good of the universe. They hold that His law is not the expression of His essence, but the invention of His wisdom. Both these opinions have this in common ; that they resolve God's justice into benevolence, or utility. The principle will be more thoroughly discussed by me in the Senior Course, in connection with the satisfaction of Christ. I only remark here, that such an account of the divine attribute of justice is attended by all the absurdities which lie against the Utilitarian system of morals among men ; and by others. It is opposed to God's independence, making the creature His end, instead of Himself, and the carrying out of His own perfections. It

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. l6/

violates our conscience, which teaches us that to inflict judicial suffering on one innocent, for the sake of utility, would be heinous wrong, and that there is in all sin an inherent desert of punishment for its own sake. It resolves righteousness into mere prudence, and right into advantage.

Now Calvinists hold that God is immutably determined by His own eternal and essential justice, to

Affirmative view. ^j^-^ every sin with punishment according to its desert. Not indeed that He is constrained, or His free- agency is bound herein ; for He is immutably impelled by noth- ing but His own perfection. Nor do they suppose that the unchangeableness is a blind physical necessity, operating under all circumstances, like gravitation, with a mechanical regularity. It is the perfectly regular operation of a rational perfection, co- existing with His other attributes of mercy, wisdom, &c., and therefore modifying itself according to its object; as much approving, yea, demanding, the pardon of the penitent and believing sinner, for whose sins penal satisfaction is made and applied, as, before, it demanded his punishment. In this sense, then : that God's retributive justice is not a mere expedient of benevolent utility, but a distinct essential attribute, I argue, by the following scriptural proofs :

(a.) Those Scriptures where God is declared to be a just and inflexible judge. Exod. xxxiv : 7; Ps.

Proved by Scripture. ^. ^ . ^^^ ^^.... ^^ . p^_ ^civ : 2 ; 1:6; Is.

1: 3, 4; Ps. xcvi : 13, &c.

(b.) Those Scriptures where God is declared to hate sin. e. g., Ps. vii: ii ; Ps. v: 4, 6; xlv : 7; Deut. iv : 24; Prov. xi: 20; Jer. xliv : 4; Is. Ixi : 8. If the Socinian, or the New Eng- land view were correct, God could not be said to hate sin, but only the consequences of it. Now, God has no passions. Drop the human dress, in which this principle is stated ; and the least we can make of this fixed hatred of God to sin, is a fixed purpose in Him to treat it as hateful.

(c.) From God's moral law, which is the transcript of His own essential perfections. Of this law, the penal sanction is always an essential part. See Rom. x : 5 ; Gal. iii : 12; Rom. v : 1 2 ; Ex. xx : 7.

This fixed opposition to sin is necessary to a pure Being. Moral good and evil are the two poles, to which the magnet, rectitude, acts. The same force which makes one pole attract the magnet, makes the other pole repel it. The Northern end of the needle can only seek the North pole, as it repels the Southern. Since sin and holiness in the creature are similar opposites, that moral action by which the right conscience approves the one, is the counterpart of its opposition to the other. It is as preposterous to claim that God's approval of right is essential to His perfection, but His disapproval of wrong, is not ; as to tell us of a magnet which infallibly turned

l68 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

its one end to the North star, but did not certainly turn its opposite end to the Southern pole. Socinians, like all other legalists, claim that God's approval of good works is essential in Him. It should be added, that this essential opposition to sin, if it exists in God, must needs show itself in regular penal acts : because He is sovereign and almighty ; and He is Supreme Ruler. If He did not treat sin as obnoxious. His regimen would tend to confound moral distinction. To all this corres- ponds the usual picture of God's justice in Scripture, as Rom. 2 : 6-1 1 ; Prov. xvii : 15.

The ceremonial law equally proves it: for the great object of all the bloody sacrifices was to hold forth the great theologi- cal truth that there is no pardon of the sinner, without the punishment of the sin in a substitute, Heb. ix : 22.

(d.) The death of Christ, a sinless being who had no guilt ■D n-u ■ .' T^ .u of His own for which to atone. We are told

By Christ s Death. 1 ,, • 1 • 1 >» /^i • 1

that our sins were laid upon Christ ; that

" He was made sin," that " He suffered the just for the unjust," " that God might be just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly ;" that " the chastisement of our peace was upon Him," &c. Is. liii: 5-1 1 ; Rom. iii : 24-26 ; Gal. iii : 13, 14 ; ist. Pet. iii : 18, &c. Now, if Christ only suffered to make a governmental display of the mischievous consequences of sin, then sin itself was not punished in Him, and all the sins of the pardoned remain forever unpunished, in express contradiction to these Scriptures, Moreover, the transaction at Calvary, instead of being a sub- lime exhibition of God's righteousness, was only an immoral farce. And last : not only is God not immutably just, but He is capable of being positively unjust : in that the only innocent man since Adam was made to suffer most of all men !

The particular phase of the argument from God's rectoral Objection, that Mag- justice, or moral relations to the rational isirates Pardon. An- universe as its Ruler, will be considered more ^'^^^' appropriately when we come to the doctrine

of satisfaction ; as also, Socinian objections. One of these, however, has been raised, and is so obvious, that it must be briefly noted here. It is that the righteousness of magistrates, parents, masters and teachers, is not incompatible with some relaxations of punitive justice ; why then, should that of our Heavenly Father be so, who is infinitely benevolent ; who is the God of love ? The answer is : that God's government differs from theirs in three particulars. They are not the appointed, supreme retributors of crime (Rom. xii : 19), and their punishments, while founded on retributive justice, are not chiefly guided by this motive, but by the policy of repressing sin and promoting order. Second : they are not immutable, either in fact or profession ; so that when they change their threats into pardons without satisfaction to the threatening, their natures are not necessarily dishonored. Third : they

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 69

are not omniscient, to know all the motives of the offender, and all the evidences of guilt in doubtful cases, so as to be able exactly to graduate the degree and certainty of guilt. These three differences being allowed for it, it would be as improper for :jan to pardon without satisfaction, as God.

God's goodness is, to creatures, one of His loveliest ^ ^, ^ attributes ; because it is from this that all the

2. Goa s JBenevo- 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 n • n

lence, &c. happmess which all enjoy flows, as water

from a spring. Goodness is the generic attribute of which the love of benevolence, grace, pity, mercy, forgiveness, are but specific actings, distinguished by the atti- tude of their objects, rather than by the intrinsic principle. Goodness is God's infinite will to dispense well-being, in accord- ance with His other attributes of wisdom, righteousness, &c., and on all orders of His creatures according to their natures and rights. Love is God's active (but passionless) affection, by which He dehghts in His creatures, and in their well-being, and delights consequently in conferring it. It is usually distin- guished into love of complacency, and love of benevolence. The former is a moral emotion, (though in God passionless), being His holy delight in holy qualities in His creatures, co-operating with His simple goodness to them as creatures. The latter is but His goodness manifesting itself, actively. The first loves the holy being on account of his excellence. The second loves the sinner in spite of his wickedness. When the student contrasts such texts as. Ps, vii : ii.; Rom. v: 8, he sees that this dis- tinction must be made. Grace is the exercise of goodness where it is undeserved, as in bestowing assured eternal blessed- ness on the elect angels, and redemption on hell-deserving man. And because all spiritual and holy qualities in saints are bestowed by God, without desert on their part, they are called also, their graces, yaniaaaza. Pity, or simple compassion, is goodness going forth towards a suffering object, and prompting, of course, to the removal of suffering. Mercy is pity towards one suffering for guilt. But as all the suffering of God's rational creatures is for guilt. His compassion to them is always mercy. All mercy is also grace ; but all grace is not mercy.

Many theologians (of the Socinian, New England and Are all the moral Universalists schools) overstrain God's good- attributes only phases ness, by representing it as His one, universally of Goodness ? prevalent moral attribute ; in such sense that

His justice is but a punitive policy dictated by goodness, His truth but a politic dictate of His benevolence, &c. Their chief reliance for support of this view is on the supposed contrariety of goodness and retributive justice ; and on such passages as : "God is love," &c. To the last, the answer is plain: if an exclusive sense must be forced upon such a text, as makes it mean that God has no quality but benevolence, then, when Paul and Moses say: " Our God is a consuming fire," we should

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ezra ix: 15
  2. Hab. i: 13
  3. Ps. v: 4
  4. Rom. v: 8

J JO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

be taught that He has no quahty but justice ; and when another says : " God is hght," that He is nothing but simple intelhgence, without will or character. The interpretation of all must be consistent iJiter se. The supposed incompatibility of goodness and justice, we utterly deny. They are two phases, or aspects, of the same perfect character. God is not good to a certain extent, and then just, for the rest of the way, as it were by patches ; but infinitely good and just at once, in all His character and in all His dealings. He would not be truly good if He were not just. The evidence is this very connection between holiness and happiness, so intimate as to give pretext for the confusion of virtue and benevolence among moralists. God's wise good- ness, so ineffably harmonized by His own wisdom and holiness, would of itself prompt Him to be divinely just; and His justness, while it does not necessitate, approves His divine goodness.

The rational proofs of God's goodness have been already presented, drawn from the structure of man's Go^d'sSness.°^' °^ sensitive, social and moral nature, and from the adaptations of the material world thereto. (See Natural Theology. Lecture 4.) To this I might add, that the very act of constructing such a creation, where sentient beings are provided, in their several orders, with their respec- tive natural good, bespeaks God a benevolent Being. For, being sufficient unto Himself, it must have been His desire to com- municate His own blessedness, which prompted Him to create these recipients of it. Does any one object, that we say He made all for His own glory ; and, therefore. His motive w-as selfish, and not benevolent? I rejoin; What must be the attributes of that Being, who thus considers His own glory as most appropriately illustrated in bestowing enjoyment? The fact that God makes beneficence His glor>^, proves Him, in the most intrinsic and noble sense, benevolent.

When we approach Scripture, we find goodness, in all its several phases, profusely asserted of God. Ps. cxlv: 8, 9 ; 1st Jno. iv : 8 ; Ex. xxxiv : 6 ; Fs. xxxiii : 5 ; Hi : i ; ciii : 8 ; xiii : 1 7 ; Ps. cxxxvi ; Jas. v : ii ; 2d. Peter, iii : 15, &c.

But the crowning proof which the Scriptures present of . God's goodness, is the redemption of sinners.

Rede°mJtrol^'°° '°"' ^om. v: 8 ; Jno. iii: 16; ist. Jno. iii: i ; iv : 10. The enhancements of this amazing display are, first : that man's misery was so entirely self-procured, and the sin which procured it so unspeakably abominable to God's infinite holiness ; second : that the misery from which He delivers is so immense and terrible, while the blessedness He confers is so complete, exalted and everlasting; third: that ruined man was to Him so entirely unimportant and unneces- sary, and moreover, so trivial and little when compared with God; fourth: that our continued attitude towards Him throughout all this plan of mercy is one of aggravating unthank-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I^I

fulness, enmity and rebellion, up to our conversion ; fifth : that God should have given such a price for such a wretched and hateful object, as the humiliation of His own Son, and the condescend- ing work of the Holy Ghost ; and last : that He should have exerted the highest wisdom known to man in any of the divine counsels, and the noblest energies of divine power, to reconcile His truth and justice with His goodness in man's redemption. Each of these features has been justly made the subject of eloquent illustration. In this argument is the inexhaustible proof for God's goodness. The work of redemption reveals a love, compassion, condescension, so strong, that nothing short of eternity will suffice to comprehend it.

The great standing difficulty concerning the divine good- ness has been already briefly considered, in Lect. v, § iv.

God's truth may be said to be an attribute which charac- terizes all God's other moral attributes, and FaUhfulness^'"*' ^""^ ^'^ intellectual. The word truth is so simple as to be, perhaps, undefinable. It may be said to be that which is agreeable to reality of things. God's knowledge is perfectly true ; being exactly correspondent with the reality of the objects thereof. His wisdom is true; being unbiased by error of knowledge, prejudice, or passion. His justice is true; judging and acting always according to the real state of character and facts. His goodness is true ; being per- fectly sincere, and its outgoings exactly according to His own perfect knowledge of the real state of its objects, and His jus- tice. But in a more special sense, God's truth is the attribute which characterizes all His communications to His creatures. When those communications are promissory, or minatory, it is called His faithfulness. This attribute has been manifested through two ways, to man; the testimony of our senses and in- telligent faculties, and the testimony of Revelation. If our con- fidence in God's truth were undermined, the effect would be universally ruinous, Not only would Scripture with all its doc- trines, promises, threatenings, precepts, and predictions, become worthless, but the basis of all confidence in our own faculties would be undermined ; and universal skepticism would arrest all action. Man could neither believe his fellow-man, nor his own experience, nor senses, nor reason, nor conscience, nor con- sciousness, if he could not believe his God.

The evidences of God's truth and truthfulness are two-fold.

^ . , , . , We find that He deals truly in the infor-

Lvidences oi it, from , • i • -u tt i i • i

j^eagon. mations which He has ordamed our own

senses and faculties to give us, whenever they are legitimately used. The grounds upon which we believe them have been briefly reviewed in my remarks upon meta- physical skepticism.- God has so formed our minds that we cannot but take for granted the legitimate informations of our senses, consciousness, and intuitions. But this unavoidable trust

1/2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

is abundantly confirmed by subsequent experiences. The testi- monies of one sense, for instance, are always confirmed by those of the others, when they are applied ; e. g., when the eye tells us a given object is present, the touch, if applied, confirms it. The expectations raised by our intuitive reason, as e. g., that like causes will produce like effects, are always verified by the occurrence of the expected phenomena. Thus a continual pro- cess is going on, like the " proving" of a result in arithmetic. Either the seemingly true informations of our senses are really true, or the harmonious coherency of the set of errors which they assert is perfectly miraculous.

The second class of proofs is that of Scripture. Truth and

^ . faithfulness are often predicated of God in

' the most unqualified terms. 2 Cor. i : i8 ;

Rev. iii:/; vi : lO; xv : 3; xvi : 7; Deut. vii : 9; Heb. x :

23 ; Titus i : 2.

All the statements and doctrines of Scripture, so far as they come within the scope of man's consciousness and intui- tions, are seen to be infallibly true ; as, for instance, that " the carnal mind is enmity against God ;" that we " go astray as soon as we be born, speaking lies," &c., &c. Again, Scripture pre- sents us with a multitude of specific evidences of His truth and faithfulness, in the promises, threatenings, and predictions, which are contained there ; for all have been fulfilled, so far as ripened.

The supposed exceptions, where threats have been left un- fulfilled, as that of Jonah against Nineveh, are of very easy solution. A condition was always either implied or expressed, on which the execution of the threat was suspended.

The apparent insincerity of God's offers of mercy, and commands of obedience and penitence, held forth to those to whom He secretly intended to give no grace to comply, offers a more plausible objection. But it has been virtually exploded by v.'hat was said upon the secret and decretive, as distinguished from the revealed and preceptive will of God. I shall return to it again more particularly when I come to treat of effectual calling.

When places. Mount Zion, utensils, oils, meats, altars,

^ ,, ,^ ,. days, &c., are called holy, the obvious

4. Crod s Holiness. • -^1^,1 ,1

meanmg is, that they are. consecrated —

i. e., set apart to the religious service of God. This idea is also prominent, when God's priests, prophets, and pro- fessed people, are called holy. But when applied to God, the word is most evidently not used in a ceremonial, but a spiritual sense. Most frequently it seems to express the general idea of His moral purity, as Levit. xi : 44; Ps. cxlv : 17; i Pet. i : 15, 16; sometimes it seems to express rather the idea of His majesty, not exclusive of His moral perfections, but inclusive also of His power, knowledge and wisdom, as in Ps. xxii : 3 ; xcviii : i ; Is. vi : 3 ; Rev. iv : 8. Holiness, therefore, is to be

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ps. cxlv: 8

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 173-

regarded, not as a distinct attribute, but as the resultant of all God's moral attributes together And as His justice, goodness,. and truth are all predicated of Him as a Being of intellect and will, and would be wholly irrelevant to anything unintelligent- and involuntary, so His holiness implies a reference to the same attributes. His moral attributes are the special crown ; His intelligence and will are the brow that wears it. His holiness- is the collective and consummate glory of His nature as an infinite, morally pure, active, and intelligent Spirit.

We have now gone around the august circle of the Divine , attributes, so far as they are known to us. In

5. o s n m y. another sense I may say that the summation of them leads us to God's other consummate attribute — His in- finitude. This is an idea which can only be defined negatively. We mean by it that God's being and attributes are wholly with- out bounds. Some divines, indeed, of modern schools, would deny that we mean anything by the term, asserting that infini- tude is an idea which the human mind cannot have at all. They employ Sir W. Hamilton's well known argument that " the finite mind cannot think the unconditioned ; because to think it is to limit it." It has always seemed to me that the plain truth on this subject is, that man's mind does apprehend the idea of infinitude, (else whence the word ?) but that it cannot compre- hend it.* It knows that there is the infinite ; it cannot fully know what it is. God's nature is absolutely without bound, as- to His substance, (immense,) as to His duration, (eternal,) as to His knowledge, (omniscience,) as to His will, (omnipotence,) as- to His moral perfections, (holiness.) It is an infinite essence.

One of the consequences which flows from these perfec- tions of God in His absolute sovereignty, upremacy. which in SO often asserted of Him in Scrip-

ture ; e. g., Dan. iv : 35; Rev. xix : 16; Rom. ix : 15-23; i Tim. vi: 15 ; Rev. iv : 1 1. By this we do not mean a power to do everything, as e. g., to punish an innocent creature, contra- dictory to God's own perfections ; but a righteous title to do everything, and control every creature, unconstrained by any- thing outside His own will, but always in harmony with His own voluntary perfections. When we call it a righteous title, we mean that it is not only a duvafjic^, but an i^uuaca, not only a physical potentia, but a moral potestas. The foundations of this righteous authority are, first, God's infinite perfections ; second, His creation of all His creatures out of nothing ; and third, His preservation and blessing of them. This sovereignty, of course, carries with it the correlative duty of implicit obedi- ence on our part.

But second : Another consequence which flows from the infinite perfections of God is ihat He is entitled not only to dis-

* See, on this point, my work on the Sensualistic Philosophy of the 19th Cen- tury ; Chap. X Schuyler's Logic — Last Part.

1/4 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

pose of US and our services, for His own glory, but to receive our supreme, sincere affections. Just in degree as the hearts of His intelligent creatures are right, will they admire, revere, and love God, above all creatures, singly or collectively.

SYLLABUS

1. Explain the origin and meaning of the tenns, Trinit)', Essence, Substance Subsistence, Person, u/xoovgiov.

Turrettin, Loc, iii, Qu. 23. Hill's Divin., bk. iii. ch. 10, § 2, 3. Knapp, g 42, 3 ; 43, 2. Dick, Lect. 28. Dr. W. Cunningham, Hist. Theol. ch. 9, I2. _

2. Give the history of opinions touching the Trinity ; and especially the Patripas- sian, SabbeUian and Avian.

Knapp, ^ 42 and 43. Hill, bk. iii, ch. 10. Dick, Lect. 29. Hagenback, Hist, of Doc. Mosheim, Com. de Reb. ante Constantinum, Vol. i, § 68, Vol. ii § 32 and 33. Dr. W. Cunningham, Hist. Theol., ch. 9, g i.

3. Define the doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the orthodox : and state the propositions included in it.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 25, 1-3, § and Qu. 27. Hill and Dick, as above. Jno. Howe, "Calm and Sober Inquiry Concerning Possibility of a Trinity."

4. What rationahstic explanations of the doctrine were attempted by the Origen- ists; and what by the mediaeval scholastics? Are they of any value?

Th. Aquinas, Summa. Hill, as above. Neander, Ch. Hist., 2 Am. Edit., Boston, Vol. ii, p. 360, &c., Vol. iv, 457, &c. Mosheim, Com., Vol. ii, \ 27 and 31. Knapp, \ 42. Watson, Theol. Inst., pt. ii, ch. 8, i (i.) 2.

5. Present the general Bible evidence of a Trinity, from the Old Testament and from the New.

Turrettin, Loc. iii. Qu. 25 and 26. Dick, Lect. 28. Knapp, \ 34, 35.

HILE a part of the terms introduced by the Scholastics

to define this doctrine are useful, others of them illustrate

in a striking manner the disposition to sub- 1. Nomenclature. ^^j^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ j^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^_

selves into the belief that they had extended the latter, by inventing the former. The Greek Fathers, like the theologians of our country, usually make no distinction between essence, and substance, representing both by the word ouaia, being. But the Latin Scholastics make a distinction between essentia, esse, and snbsta7itia. By the first, they mean that which con- stitutes the substance, the kind of thing it is : or its nature, if it be a thing created. By the second, they mean the state of being in existence. By the third, they mean the subject itself, which exists, and to which the essence belongs. Subsistence differs from substance, as mode differs from that of which it is the mode. To call a thing substance only affirms that it is an existing thing. Its subsistence marks the mode in which it exists, e. g., matter and spirit are both substances of different kinds. But they subsist very differently. The infinite spirit

W

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1/5

exists as a simple, indivisible substance ; but it subsists as three persons. Such is perhaps the most intelligible account of the use of these two terms ; but the pupil will see, if he analyses his own ideas, that they help him to no nearer or clearer affirm- ative conception of the personal distinction.

The word Person, ~o(iao')-i>v persona, (sometimes urcoaraaic: in the later Greek), means more than the Latin idea, of a 7'ole sustained for the time being; but less than the popular modern sense, in which it is employed as equivalent to individual. Its meaning will be more fully defined below. Uhj-oouatoci means of identical substance. The Greek Fathers also employed the word itj-sncyojor^ac::, intercomprehension, to signify that the per- sonal distinction implied no separation of substance. But, on the contrary, there is the most intimate mutual embracing of each in each ; what we should call, were the substance mate- rial, an interpenetration.

The subsistence of the three persons in the Godhead was

the earliest subject of general schism in the

/• "^^r^^ '^"il'^'^"^^ primitive Church. To pass over the primi- of Opinion on Trinity. ^. „ . ^ ^t ■ ^ ^

. tive Gnostic and Manichaean sects, three

tendencies, or schools of opinion, may be marked in the earlier ages ; and in all subsequent times, the Orthodox, or Trinita- rian, the Monarchian, and the . Arian. The first will be expounded in its place. The tendency of mind prompting both the others may be said to be the same, and indeed, the same which has prevailed ever since, viz : a desire to evade the inscrutable mystery of three in one, by so explaining the second and third persons, as to reach an absolute unity both of person and substance, for the self-existent God. {[J-oy^j ^P'//j-) Hence, it may justly be said that Arianism, and even Socinian- ism, are as truly monarchian theories, as that of Noetus, to whom the title was considered as most appropriate.

Noetus, an obscure clergyman, (if a clergyman) of Smyrna, is said to have founded a sect on the.doc- Patripassian. \_rme, that there is only one substance and

person in the Godhead ; that the names. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are nothing but names for certain phases of action or roles, which God successively assumes. Christ was the one person, the Godhead or Father, united to a holy man, Jesus, by a proper Hypostatic union. The Holy Ghost is still this same person, the Father, acting His part as revealer and sancti- fier. Hence, it is literally true, that the Father suffered, i. e., in that qualified sense in which the Godhead was concerned in the sufferings experienced by the humanity, in the Mediatorial Person. This theory, while doing violence to Scripture, and deranging our theology in many respects, is less fatal by far, than that of Arians and Socinians : because it retains the proper divinity of the Messiah and of the Holy Ghost.

The Sabellian theory (broached by Sabellius, of Pentap-

176 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

olis in Lybia Cyrenaica, about A. D. 268,) has been by some represented as though it were hardly distinguishable from the Patripassian ; and as though he made the names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost the mere titles of three modes of action which the one Godhead successively assumes. By others it has been represented as only a sort of high Socinianism, as though he had taught that the Holy Ghost was an influence emanating from the Godhead, and Christ was a holy man upon whom a similar influence had been projected. But Mosheim has shown, I think, in his Com. de Rebus, &c., that both are incorrect, and that the theory of Sabellius was even more abstruse than either of these. The term which he seems to have employed was that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three forms [ayr^imza) of the God- head, which presented real portions of His substance, extended into them, as it were,' by a sort of spiritual division. Thus, the Son and 'Holy Ghost are not parts of the Father; but aU three are parts, or forms, of a more recondite godhead. According to this scheme, therefore, the Son and Holy Ghost are precisely as divine as the Father; but it will appear to the attentive stu-, dent very questionable, whether the true godhead of all three be not vitiated.

The theory of Arius is so fully stated, and well known, that though more important, it needs few words. He represents the Son, prior to His incarnation, as an infinitely exalted creature, produced (or gen- erated) by God out of nothing, endued with the nearest possible approximation to His own perfections, adopted into sonship, clothed with a sort of deputized divinity, and employed by God as His glorious agent in all His works of creation and redemption. The Holy Ghost is merely a /.ziana x-irrndTu^ produced by the Son.

Now, it has been well stated by Dr. Hill, that there can be Error tends either to ^"^ three schemes in substance : the ortho- obliterate or widen per- dox, the Patripassian, and the Subordination- sonal distinctions. jg^_ ^jj attempts to devise some other path,

have merged themselves virtually into one or the other of these errors. Either the personal distinctions are obliterated, or they are so widened as to make the Son another and an inferior substance. Now, the refutation of the latter schemes will be sufficiently accomplished if we succeed (in the next Lecture) in establishing the proper divinity, and identity of substance of the Son.

The refutation of the former class of theories is effected by showing that some true and definite dis- refuJeT'"''"'" ''^''"'' tinction of persons is predicted in Scripture of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It will appear in so many places, asserted in so many forms, so inter- twined with the very woof of the Scriptures, that its denial

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. Yjy

does fatal violence to the integrity of their language, (a.) I point to those numerous passages, where one Person is said to act upon, or act through, another. See, e. g., Exod. xxiii : 20; Ps. ii : 6, ex.; Is. xlii : i , Hii : 12; Jno. xv:26; xx:2i, &c., &c., where God the Father is said to send, to enthrone, to appoint to sacerdotal office, to uphold, to reward the Son, and the Son and Father to send the Holy Ghost, (b.) Consider those, in which mutual principles of affection are said to subsist between the persons. Is. xliii : i ; Jno. x: 17, 18, &c., &c. (c) There is a multitude of other passages, where voluntary princi- ples and volitions are said to be exercised by the several per- sons as such, towards inferior and external objects. Exod. xxxiii: 21. (The subject is the Messiah, as will be proved.) Eph. iv: 30, Rev. vi : 16, &c., &c. Yet, since these principles are all perfectly harmonious, as respects the three persons, there is no dissension of will, breach in unity of council, or difference of perfections, (d) There is a still larger multitude of texts, which assert of the persons as such, actions and agencies toward inferior, external objects. See, for instance, Jno. v: X9; I Cor.xii: ii, &c., &c. Now, if these personal names, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, meant no more than three influences or energies, or three phases of action of the same person, or three forms of one substance, is it not incredi- ble that all these properties of personality, choosing, loving, hating, sending and being sent, understanding, acting, should be asserted of them ? It would be the wildest abuse of language ever dreamed of.

The doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the Catholic

Church, cannot be better defined, than in the

_^3. Definition of Trin- ^^^^^ ^f our Confession. (Recite ch. II, § 3.)

It embraces the following propositions :

1. The true unity, indivisibility, and simplicity of God.

2. The subsistence of a threefold personal distinction, marked by a part of the properties of separate personalities, (in some inscrutable manner, entirely compatible with true unity) as intelligence, active principles, volition, action.

3. Identity of substance, so that the. whole godhead is truly in each person, without confusion or division, and all the essence belongs alike to all the persons.

4. The distinction of the three persons, each by its prop- erty, incommunicable from one person to another, and the exist- ence consequently of eternal relations between them.

Now, that it is inscrutable how these things can be, we freely admit. Did they involve a necessary impSle!'^''^'''"^' self-contradiction, we should also admit that the understanding would be incapable of re- ceiving them all together. But we do not hold that the persons are three in the same sense in which they are one. If it be asked what is the precise meaning of the phrase, person in the 12*

178 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Godhead ? we very freely answer, that we know only in part. You will observe that all the Socinian and Rationalist objec- tions mentioned in your text-books against this doctrine, either proceed on the misrepresentation, that we make three equal to one, (as in the notorious Socinian formula ; let a. b. c. repre- sent the persons, and x. the Godhead ; then a==x : b=x : c=x. Add, and we have a+b+c=3 x=x,) in the same sense: or they are argumenta ad ignorantiam. But is it not just we should expect, that when God reveals something about the subsistence of His being, it should be thoroughly inscrutable to us ? We must remember that the human mind has no cognizance of sub- stance, in fact, except as the existing ground, to which our in- tuitions impel us to refer properties. It is only the properties that we truly conceive. This is true of material substance; how much more true of spiritual substance ? And more yet of the infinite ? God, in revealing Himself to the natural reason, only reveals His being and properties or attributes — His sub- stance remains as invisible as ever. Look back, I pray you, to that whole knowledge of God which we have acquired thus far, and you will see that it is nothing but a knowledge of attri- butes. Of the substance to which these properties are referred, we have only learned that it is. What it is, remains impene- trable to us. We have named it simple spirit. But is this, after all, more than a name, and the affirmation of an unknown fact to our understandings ? For, when we proceed to examine our own conception of spirit, we find that it is a negation of mate- rial attributes only. Our very attempts to conceive of it, (even formed after we have laid down this as our prime feature of it, that it is the antithesis of matter,) in its substance, are still ob- structed by an inabihty to get out of a materialistic circle of notions. We name it Ili'zbij.a, spiritus, breath ; as though it were only a gaseous and transparent form of matter ; and only differed thus from the solid and opaque. This obstinate, materi- alistic limit of our conceptions arises, I suppose, from the fact, that conceptions usually arise from perceptions, and these are only of sensible, i. e., of material ideas. This obstinate inca- pacity of our minds may be further illustrated by asking our- selves : What is really our conception of God's immensity ? When we attempt the answer do we not detect ourselves always framing the notion of a transparent body extended beyond assignable limits ? Nothing more ! Yet, reason compels us to hold that God's substance is not extended at all, neither as a vast solid, nor a measureless ocean of liquid, nor an immense volume of hydrogen gas expanded beyond limit. Extension, in all these forms, is a property wholly irrelevant to spirit. Again : (and this is most in point,) every Socinian objection which has any plausibility in it, involves this idea ; that a trinity of Persons must involve a division of God's substance into llirec parts. But we know that divisibility is not a property of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1/9

spirit at all — the idea is wholly irrelevant to it, belonging only to matter.

The Socinian would say here : " Precisely so ; and hence we reason against the impossibility of a ria?s^ir^°"' ^^^ ^^'''^" trinity in unity. If divisibility is totally irrele- vant to infinite Spirit, then it is indivisible, and so, can admit no trinity."

Inspect this carefully, and you will find that it is merely a verbal fallacy. The Socinian cheats himself with the notion that he knows something here, of the divine substance, which he does not know. By indivisible here, he would have us under- stand the mechanical power of utterly resisting division, like that imputed to an atom of matter. But has Spirit this mate- rial property ? This is still to move in the charmed circle of material conceptions. The true idea is, not that the divine sub- stance is materially atomic ; but that the whole idea of parts and separation is irrelevant to its substance, in both a negative and affirmative sense. To say that Spirit is indivisible, in that material sense, is as false as to say that it is divisible. Thus the stock argument of the Socinian against the possibility of a trinity is found to be a fallacy ; and it is but another instance of our incompetency to comprehend the real substance of spirit, and of the confusion which always attends our efforts to do so. We cannot disprove here, by our own reasonings, any more than we can prove ; for the subject is beyond our cognition.

I pray the student to bear in mind, that I am not here at- tempting to explain the Trinity, but just the contrary : I am endeavoring to convince him that it cannot be explained. (And because it cannot be explained, it cannot be rationally rebut- ted.) I would show him that we must reasonably expect to find the doctrine inexplicable, and to leave it so, I wish to show him that all our difficulties on this doctrine arise from the vain ■conceit that we comprehend something of the subsistence of God's substance, when, in fact, we only apprehend something. Could men be made to see that they comprehend nothing, all the supposed impossibilities would vanish ; there would remain a profound and majestic mystery.

The mint from which every attempted rationale of the 4. Rational Expla- Trinity has come, was the New Platonic ; nation of Greek Scho- and the chief media of their introduction to ^^^^^*^^- the Christian Theology, Clem. Alexandrinus

and Origen. Following the trinitarian scheme which the New Platonists attributed (with insufficient grounds) to Plato, of To ""fh, Nohz and ^'y/^', they usually represent God the Father as the intelligent substance, intrinsically and eternally active, the No~j:, as the idea of self, generated from eternity by God's self-intel- lection ; and the P'^y/jy ^^ the active complacency arising upon it. The Platonizing fathers, who called themselves orthodox, were not slow to fling the charge oi monarchianism {Mour^ ■^l'7Ji)

l80 SYLLAbUS AND NOTES

against all Patripassians, which I make against the Arians also, as reaching by diverse roads, an assertion of a single divine person. The modern student will be apt to think that their rationalism betrays the very same tendency ; an unwillingness to bow the intellect to the dense mystery of a real and proper three in one ; and an attempt to evade it by perpetually de- stroying the personality of the second and third persons.

This attempted explanation appears with new completeness and fullness, after the Peripatetics had modi- qmnas. ^^^ ^■^^ Platonic S}»stem, in the Latin Scho-

lastics. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, states the matter about thus : Infinite activity of thought is the very essence of the Divine substance. But from eternity there was but a two-fold object of thought for this intellect to act on — God's self, and His decree. Now, as man is made intellectually in God's image, we cannot conceive of God's thinking, except by con- ceiving of our own acts of thought as the finite type of which His is the infinite antitype. Now, when man thinks, or con- ceives, it is only by means of a species of image of that which is the object of his thought, present before his mind. So, God's very act of thinking of Himself and His decree generates in the divine mind, a species of them ; it generates them eternally ; because God is eternally and necessarily active in thinking. This species or idea is therefore eternal as God, yet generated by God, it is of the same essence, for it is non-corporeal, spirit- ual entity, and God's essence is pure intellection. It is one with God ; for it is God's idea of Himself, and His own eternal purpose which is Himself purposing. This is the Aoyo^, the 2d Person. Again, as in our souls, so in God, the presence of a moral object in conception awakens moral sentiment, and of a plan or device, approval or disapproval ; so, God's contem- plation of this idea of Himself and His decree, begets a moral complacency, and a volition to effectuate (when the fullness of time shall have come) the decree. This complacency and voli- tion are the Spirit, the 3d or practical Person of the Godhead, proceeding from the Father and the Idea, or Joyo-.

This rationale we cannot but regard as worthless, though . . ingenious. First: The Scriptures inform us

jec ons 01. .^ advance, that God is inscrutable ; and

that we need not expect to explain His subsistence. Job ii : 7. Second: According to this explanation, both the Ndb:^ and the ^I'^jyr^ would be compounded, the former of the two species of God's being and of His decree ; the latter of two feelings, His moral self-complacency and His volition to ef- fectuate His decree. Third: Neither the 2d nor 3d persons would be substance at all, but mere idea and feeling, which have no entity whatever, except as affections of the substance of the Father. This seems to our minds an objection so obvious and conclusive, that no doubt the student is almost incredulous

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. l8l

that acute men should have seriously advanced a theory ob- noxious to it. The answer is, that the Platonic and Peripatetic metaphysics ignored, in a manner astonishing to the modern christian mind, the distinction between substanc: and affections. Between the two kinds of entity, they drew no generic distinc- tion. But is this not one of the very traits of modern, trans- cendental Idealism, from Spinoza down ? Foiirth : On this scheme of a- trinity, I see not how the conclusion could be avoided, that every intelligent free agent is as much a finite trinity in unity as God is an infinite one. Let us then attempt no explanation where explanation is impossible.

Having thus defined the doctrine, we proceed to its proof. 5. Proof of Trini- That the evidence for the Trinity must be ty wholly of Revela- wholly a matter of revelation, would appear *^""- sufficiently from the weakness of the attempt

made by the Scholastics, to find some proof or presumptive probability in the light of reason. The most plausible of these, perhaps, is that which Neander informs us, Raymund Lulley employed against the Unitarian Moslems of Barbary, which is not discarded even by the great Aquinas and the modern Christlieb. They say God is immutable from eternity. He exists now in a state of active benevolence. Hence, there must have always been, from eternity, some sense in which God had an object of His benevolence, in some measure extraneous ; else active benevolence would have been impossible ; and the result would be, that the creation of the angels (or earliest holy creatures) would have constituted an era of change in God. The reasoning appears unsound by this simple test. God is now actively righteous and punitive, as well as good ; and a parallel argument will prove, therefore, with equal conclusiveness, the eternity of a devil. The solution of the sophism is to be found in those remarks by which we defended God's immutability against the objection, that the creation of the universe consti- tuted a change in God. It does not; because God's purpose to create, when His chosen time should have come, was unchangeably present with him from eternity. Creation makes the change in the creature ; not in God. The argument would be more plausible, if left in its undeveloped form viz : That an eternal absolute solitude was incompatible with absolute bless- edness and perfection. Yet the answer is, that we cannot know this to be true of any infinite essence.

The Scripture evidence for a Trinity presents itself in two forms. The most extensive and conclusive Proofs?'""^^^""^''^ may be called the indirect and inferential proof, which consists in these two facts when collated: 1st, That God is one. 2d, That not only the Father, but the Son and Holy Ghost, are proper God. This evidence presents itself very extensively over the Bible ; and the two propositions may be said to be intertwined with its whole woof

152 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and warp. The other testimony is the general direct testimony, where a plurahty in the one God is either stated, or involved in some direct statement. The latter evidence is the one we pre- sent now : the former will become evident as we present the proof of the Divinity of the 2d and 3d Persons.

The text-books assigned to the students, present a collec- tion and discussion of those passages .so complete, that I shall not make an unnecessary recapitulation. I shall only set down a list of those passages which I consider relevant; and conclude with a few cursive remarks on the argument in a few points. The student, then, may solidly advance the following testimon- ies, as cited and expounded by the Books.

From the Old Testament :

Gen. i : 2, with Ps. civ : 30 : Prov. viii : 22, &c.

Gen. i : 26 : iii : 22 : xi : 7 ; Is. vi : 8,

Numb, vi : 24-26, may have some feeble weight when col- lated with Is. vi : 3, and 2 Cor. xiii : 14.

Hosea i: 7; Isaiah Ixiii : 7-14, and Ps. xlv: 6.

The argument from the plural forms D'^JT^^; DTl/^- it

seems to me ought to be surrendered after the objections of Calvin and Buxtorff

In the New Testament a very clear argument arises from the formula of Baptism. Matt, xxviii: 19. The only objection of any plausibility, is that from i Cor. x : 2 — " Baptized unto Moses." In addition to the answers of Turrettin, it is surely sufficient to say, that this is a very different case from that where the names of the 2d. and 3d. persons are connected with that of God the Father in the same sentence and same con- struction.

Another indisputable argument is derived from the Apostolic benediction. 2 Cor. xiii: 14. See also Rev. i: 4, 5 : I Cor. xii : 4-6.

The argument from the baptism of Christ seems to me pos- sessed of some force, when the meaning of the Father's avowal and of the Spirit's descent are understood in the light of Scripture.

The much litigated passage in i John v : 7, is certainly of too doubtful genuineness to be advanced, polemically, against the adversaries of the Trinity : however, we may believe that the tenour of its teaching is agreeable to that of the Scriptures elsewhere.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. iv: 30
  2. Hosea i: 7
  3. Ps. xlv: 6
  4. 2 Cor. xiii: 14
  5. Rev. i: 4

SYLLABUS

1. Prove that Christ is very God, from what the Scriptures say of His pre-existence. Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 28. Hill, bk. iii, ch. 3 and 4. Dick, Lect. 30. Wat- son's Theol. Inst., pt. ii, ch. 10.

2. What is the doctrhie of the Old Testament concerning the proper divinity of the Messiah? And was He the person revealed in the theophanies?

Hill's Div., bk. iii, ch. 5. Hengstenberg's Christologie, Vol. i, ch. 3. Dick, Lect. 31. Watson, pt. ii, ch. xi.

3. Are the divine names ascribed to Christ ?

Turrettin, as above. Hill's Div., bk. iii, ch. 7, g L Dick, Lect. 30, 31. Watson, pt. ii, ch. 12.

4. Are the divine attributes given to Christ ?

Turrettin, as above. Hill, as above, §2. Dick, Lect. 31. Watson, as above, ch. 13.

5. Are the divine works ascribed to Christ ? Same authorities. Watson, as above, ch. 14.

6. Is divine worship in the Scriptures rendered to Christ?

Turrettin, as above. Hill, as above, ^ 3. Dick, Lect. 32. Watson, as above, ch. 15. See on the whole, Abbadie, on the Trinity. Wardlaw's Socinian Controversy. Moses Stuart against Channing. Evasions and objections to be argued under their appropriate heads.

^ I ^HIS may be called a prime article of revealed theolgy;

■'' affecting not only the subsistence of the Godhead, but the

p.. A t" 1 question whether Christ is to be trusted,

obeyed and worshiped as God, the nature and efficacy of His atoning offices, the constitution of the Church, and all its rites. He who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a Christian ; he who does not, (whatever his pro- fession), is a mere Deist. Without the Divinity, the Bible is, " the drama of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted."

We have already established a Trinity of persons in the

Godhead ; and this alone, if validly proved, under five H^e"ds^^^ ^ would show the divinity of Jesus Christ. For

where else in Revelation, than in the persons of Him and the Holy GJiost, can the other persons be so natur- ally and plausibly found? But not to urge this: the general strain of the language of the Old and New Testaments pro- duces an overwhelming impression, that they mean to represent the Messiah as divine. Note the contrast between their descriptions of Him and of Moses, the greatest of men ; the fact that Jews have almost uniformly understood the New Testament as inculcating it, and thus rejected it as idolatrous; the laborious evasions to which Socinians are obliged to resort ; and the fact that the great majority of both friends and enemies have so understood it. If the Apostles did not intend to teach this doctrine they have certainly had the remarkable ill-luck of producing the very impression which they should have avoided, especially in a Book intended to subvert idolatry.

183

184 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

There is, as has been intimated, a general testimony for this truth, interwoven with the whole texture of Scripture, which cannot be adequatdy presented in a few propositions, because of its extent. It can only be appreciated by the extended and familiar study of the whole Bible. But the more specific arguments for the divinity of Jesus Christ have usually been digested into the five heads : of His Pre-existence, Names, Attributes, Works and Worship. This distribution is suffi- ciently correct. My purpose will be, to employ the very limited space I can allot to so extensive an argument, first in giving you a syllabus of it, which shall possess some degree of com- pleteness ; and second, in illustrating some of the more important testimonies, so as to exhibit, in a few instances, the manner in which they apply, and exegetical evasions are to be met.

If Jesus Christ had an existence before he w^as born of the . , . virgin, this at once settles the question, as

tence "^ ^ pre-exis- j^j^ remarks, that He is not mere man. And if this pre-existence was characterized by eter- nity, independence, or divine works of Creation and Providence, it further settles the question that He was not a creature. The theophanies of a second person of the Godhead, if revealed in the Old Testament, (and if that person can be identified with Jesus Christ), as well as His works of creation, if ascribed to Him, wnll be parts of this argument for His pre-existence, as well as fall under other heads.

But we find a more direct testimony for His pre-existence contained in a number of passages, where Christ is said to have been "sent" to have "come from heaven," to "come into the world," to be "made flesh," &c, &c. See John iii : 31 ; vi : 38; xvi : 28; xiii : 3 ; vi : 62 ; i John iv: 23; John i : 14; Heb. ii : 7. 9, 14, 16. Of one of us, it may be popularly said that we came into existence, came into the world ; but those phrases could not be used with propriety, of "one who then only began to exist.

Consult also, John i : 1-17, 15, 30; iii; I3:viii:58; xvii 5 ; I Cor. XV : 47 ; 2 Cor viii : 9 : Heb. i : 10, 1 1 ; Rev. i : 8, 17 ; ii : 8 ; iii : 14,

John i : &c. — In the passage, from John i : 1-17, only two evasions seem to have a show of plausibility : ist, to deny the personality of the Anyo^ ; 2d, to deny that His pre-existence is taught in the phrase, iv dfr/7^. But the first is refuted by show- ing that the Anyo:; is the creator of all ; that in verse 4, He is identified with the ^Pwc, which (Poj; again, verses 6, 7, was the object of John Baptist's preparatory ministry; which (/ho:: again was rejected by the world, verses 10, 11; and this 0co:;, identi- cal with the Anyo:, was incarnate, (verse 14), was testified unto by John Baptist, (verse 15); and is finally identified, (verse 17), with Jesus Christ, the giver of grace and truth. That the phrase iv dnyv^ does assert His pre-existence is proved by the resem- blance of it to the Septuagint rendering of Gen. i: i. By the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 85

author's use of /y^, instead of iyiuszo, by His association with God, verse 2, showing a pre-existence similar to God's ; by His creation of all things, (verse 3), and by the utter folly of the gloss which would make the Evangelist say that Jesus Christ was in existence when His ministry began. That John should have used the the peculiar philosophic titles, Anyo^ and (/^cbc, for Jesus Christ, is most reasonably explained by the state of opin- ion and theological language when He wrote His gospel. The Chaldean Paraphrase, and the Platonizing tendencies of Philo and his sect, had familiarized the speculative Jews to these terms, as expressive of the second person ; and meantime, the impious speculations of Judazing Gnostics, represented by Cerinthus, had attempted to identify Jesus Christ with one of the .hcojiys:: of their dreams, a sort of luminous emanation of the divine intelligence. It was to vindicate the truth from this folly, that St. John adopts the words Aoyo:: and 0(oz in this emphatic assertion of the Messiah's proper divinity. See also i John i: I ; Rev. xix: 13.

That the Messiah was to be human, was so clearly revealed

in the Old Testament, that no Jew misunder- in OwSmfnL ' ^tood it. He was to be the Son of David

according to the flesh. It may seem some- what incompg-tible with a similar disclosure, of His proper divinity, that the Jewish mind should have been so obstinately closed to that doctrine. But the evidences of it in the Old Testament are so strong, that we are compelled to account for the failure of the unbelieving Jews to embrace it, by the stub- bornness of prejudice, and death in sin. The Messianic pre- dictions of the Old Testament have formed the subject by themselves, of large volumes; I can, therefore, do little more than enumerate the most conclusive of them as to His divinity, giving the preference, of course, to those of them which are interpreted of, and applied to, Jesus Christ, by the infallible exposition of the New Testament. Compare, then, Num. xiv : 22, and xxi : 5, 6, and Ps. xcv : 9, with i Cor. x : 9. The tempt- ing of the Lord of the Old Testament, is described by Paul as tempting Christ ; in consequence of which they were destroyed of serpents. Ps. cii : 26, ascribes to God an immutable eter- nity; but Heb. I : 10, 11, applies it to Jesus Christ. In Is. vi, the prophet sees a vision of Jehovah, surrounded with every circumstance of divine majesty. But Jno. xii : 41, explains: " These things said Esaias, when he saw His glor^', and spake of Him." Is. xlv: 22, 23; Jehovah says: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth; but Rom. xiv: 11, and I Cor. i : 30, evidently apply the context to Jesus Christ. Thus, also, compare Ps. Ixviii : 18, with Eph. iv: 8, 9; Joel ii : 32, with Rom. x: 13; Is. vii : 14, with Matt, i: 22, 23; Micah. v: 2, with Matt, ii : 6, and j\Ial. iii : i, with Mark i: 2, and Luke I : y6. The last three pairs of references contain a proof

1 86

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. John iv: 23
  2. Rev. xix: 13
  3. Rom. xiv: 11
  4. Eph. iv: 8
  5. Rom. x: 13
  6. Mark i: 2

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

peculiarly striking. In Is. vii : 14, the child born of a virgin is to be named 'God with us.' In Matt, i : 22, 23, a child, Jesus Christ, is born of a virgin, and receives, by divine injunction,, through the mouth of an angel, the name 'God with us ;' because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and was to save His peo- ple from theiF sins. In Micah. v : 2, Bethlehem is destined to the honor of bringing forth the Ruler whose attribute was eternity ; in Matt, ii : 6, it is declared that this prediction is fulfilled by the appearance of Jesus Christ. In Mai. iii : i, the Angel of the Covenant is foretold. He is identified with Jesus Christ by his forerunner, John, who is expressly declared to be the person here predicted, by Luke i: 76. But that this Angel is divine, is clear from his propriety in the temple (his temple) which is God's house, and from the divine functions of Judge and heart-Searcher, which He there exercises. In Ps. ex : i,

David calls the Messiah "^ jl^ though his descendant accord-

T -: ing to the flesh. In Matt, xxii : 45, Christ Himself applies this to the Messiah ("What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?") and challenges them (in substance) to account for it without granting His divinity. And this iioth Psalm, then proceeds to ascribe to this Being eternity of priesthood, (v. 4,) as expounded in Heb. vii: 3, as having "neither beginning of days, nor end of life," supreme authority, and judgment over mankind. The Ps. ii, describes God as setting His King upon His holy hill of Zion : who is declared to be His eternal Son, (v. 7,) the Ruler of the whole earth, (v. 8,) the sovereign avenger of His opponents, (v. 9,) and the appointed object of religious trust. Surely these are divine attributes. Compare Jer. xvii : 5. But Acts iv: 25-28, attribute the whole prediction to Jesus Christ. So Ps. xlv: 6, calls th: king God, D'm'T'^^ and attributes

to Him an everlasting throne. But Heb. i : 8, applies these words to the Son, afterwards defined to be Jesus Christ. So let the student compare for himself, (for time will fail me to go into explanation of every text,) Zech. xii : 10, with John xix: ly, Is. Ixi : I ; (Speaker calls Himself I, the Lord, v. 8,) with Luke iv: 18-21. Examine, also, Is. iv : 2 ; ix: 5, 6, 7; xi : 4, 10; Ps. Ixxii: 17, 5; Dan. vii: 13, 14. Zech. chap, xiii : 7, compared with xi : 13; xii: 10; Jer. xxiii : 5, 6. Ps. xcvii : 7, witli Heb. i : 6.

But a second important class of Old Testament evidences Argument from the fo^ the divinity of Christ, will appear when theophanies and An- we inquire who was the Person who appeared in the theophanies granted to the Patriarchs. A personal distinction by which God the Father might disclose Hnnself to man in another person than His own, seems to be indicated by His nature. He is called the invisible God. i Tim. i: 17; Heb. xi : 27. It is declared that no man can see Him and live. Exod. xxxiii : 20 ; and we read, in the cases of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 8/

some of the theophanies, that the persons favoured with them were amazed at their surviving the fearful privilege. Gen. xxxii: 30; Judges vi : 22, 23. But besides this concealed Person, who, though everywhere present, rarely makes Himself cognizable, and never visible to mortals, the New Testament, especially, informs us of another Person, the same in essence, whose office it has ever been, since God had a Church, to act as the mediating Messenger and Teacher of that Church, and bring man into providential and gracious relations with the inaccessible God. This function Christ has performed, both before and since His incarnation ; and thus He is the Word, the Light, the visible Image to man of the invisible Godhead. See Jno. xiv : 8, 9 ; i : 18; i Jno. 1:1,2; 2 Cor, iv : 4 ; Heb. 1:3. Yet this distinction cannot be pushed so far as though the Father never communicates with men, as the ist person. Some of the very places cited to prove the divinity of the Son, show the Father as such, testifying to the Son. Ps. ii, and ex. And in E.Kod. xxiii : 20 ; xxxii : 34, language is used by a person, concerning another person, under the title of angel, which can- not possibly be identified as a single person, yet both are divine. It would be a great error, therefore, and would throw this whole argument into confusion, to exclude Jehovah the Father wholly from these communications to Old Testament saints, and attribute all the messages to the Son immediately. It so happens that Moses received these theophanies, in which we are compelled to admit the personal presence of the ist person per se, as well as the 2d. May not this be the explana- tion, that He was honoured to be the Mzaiv/^z of the Old Test- ament Church, in a sense in which no other mere man ever was : in that He communicated directly with the person of the Father: Exod. xxxiii : 11 ; Numb, xii : 6-8 ; Deut. xxxiv : 10. Did not Jehovah Christ speak face to face to Jacob, >\braham, Manoah, &c. ?

Another seeming difficulty presents itself (said to have

been urged with confidence by St. Augustine

Augustine's difficulty. ^^^ ^^j^^^. Fathers) from Heb. i: i, 2, and ii :

2, 3. The Apostle, it is urged, seems here to teach, that the Old Testament was distinguished from the New, by being not communicated through God, (the Son,) but through creatures, as agents. I answer, if the texts be strained into this meaning, they will then contradict the context. For the theophanies and other immediate divine communications must be imputed to a divine person, the Father, if not the Son ; and then there would be no basis, on their premises, for the Apostle's argu- ment, that the New Testament was more authoritative, because the teaching of a divine minister. The truth is, that the Apos- tle's contrast is only this : In the Old Testament, the Messiah did not appear as an incarnate prophet, ministering His own message ordinarily and publickly among the people. (His

1 88 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

theophanic teachings were usually private to some one human agent.) In the New Testament, He did. Nor can it be sup- posed that The Angel of Jehovah, who presented these theoph- anies, is explained by the o: ayyi'/MV of Heb. ii : 2. He was wholly a different Being; their ministry was only 'attendant, and co-operative^ at Sinai. (See Stephen, Acts vii : 53 ; Ps. Ixviii : 17.) The 2d person seems to be identified in the following places : Gen. xvi : 7, the Angel of Jehovah Jnstances of theoph- ^^^^^ Hagar — V. lo, He promises to exert divine power — v. ii, claims to have heard her distress; and v. 13, Hagar is surprised that she survives the Divine vision. Gen. xviii, three men visit Abraham identified, xix : I, as angels. The chief angel of these three, in xviii: i,

14, 17, &c., makes Himself known as Jehovah, receives Abra- ham's worship, &c. And in Gen. xlviii : 15, 16, this Jehovah is called by Jacob, " the Angel which redeemed me from all evil," &c., and invoked to bless Joseph's sons, a divine function. Again, in Gen. xxi : 17, The Angel of God speaks to Hagar, promising her, v. 18, a divine exertion of power. In Gen. xxii:

I. D'nl^^^ commands Abraham to take his son Isaac and sac-

Vl

rifice him. v. ii, when in the act of doing it, the Angel of Jehovah arrests, and says, v. 13, "Thou hast not withheld thy son from me;" and, v. 14, Abraham names the place Jehovah jireh. In Gen. xxxi : 11, the Angel of Jehovah appears to Jacob in a dream, identified in v. 13, with God, the God of Gen. xxviii: 11-22, the God of Bethel then declared Jehovah. In Gen. xxxii : 25, Jacob wrestles with an angel, seeks his bless- ing, and names the place, v. 30, Peniel. This Angel is in the narrative called E^lohim, and Hosea xxii : 4-6, describing the same transaction, Elohim, Angel and Jehovah of Hosts. In the same method compare Exod. iii : 2, with vs. 4, 6, 14-16; Exod. xiv: 19, with v. 24; Exod. xxih : 20, with subsequent verse ; Exod. xxxii : 34 ;V : 13 to vi : 2, with xxxiii : 3, 4, 14, 15 ; Numb, xxii : 22, with vs. 32-35 ; Josh. v. 13, to vi : 2 ; Judges ii : 1-4. Compare Judges vi : 11, with vs. 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, &c. Judges xiii: 3, with vs. 21, 22. And Is. Ixiii : 9; Zech. i : 12-

15, compare vi : 15. Compare Zech. iii : 2, with v. i ; Ps. xxxiv: 7; xxxv : 5.

Now, the amount of what has been proved in these cita-

„ , . tions is, that two Persons, both having un-

Conclusions. ,• , , 1. . .1 . ?•

questionable divme attributes, yet sometimes

employing the incommunicable name in common, appear on the stage. They are distinguished by unquestioned personal dis- tinctions of willing, acting, feeling. One is the Sender, the

other is the Sent. (71^57^) The one usually acts with a cer- tain reserve and invisibility, the other is called the "Angel of His countenance." Is. Ixiii : 9. Compare with Col. 1:1$;

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Luke i: 76
  2. Heb. vii: 3
  3. Acts iv: 25-28
  4. Ps. xlv: 6
  5. Luke iv: 18-21
  6. Dan. vii: 13
  7. Heb. 1:3
  8. Exod. xiv: 19
  9. Josh. v. 13
  10. Judges xiii: 3
  11. Col. 1:1

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 189'

Heb. i : 3. To this latter the phrase, Angel of Jehovah is so often applied, that it becomes at length a proper name. And the completing link of the evidence is given by Mai. iii: 1-3, and Isaiah xl : 3. The forerunner is predicted in the latter of these places, as a " voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,, prepare ye the way of Jehovah," &c. Malachi teaches that a forerunner was to precede, when the Lord whom the Jews were expecting, even the Angel of the Covenant, would suddenly come to His temple. And this Being is clearly shown to be divine, by his proprietorship in the temple, and the sovereign judicial functions he would perform there. But now, when we look into the New Testament, we find, that the forerunner was John the Baptist, and the person introduced was our Lord Jesus- Christ. See Matt, ii : lo; Mark 1:2: Luke i : 76, and vii: 27. Jesus Christ was, therefore, the Angel of the Covenant, the owner of the Temple, the Jehovah of Isaiah, xl : 3, 5, whose glory John was to usher in. Thus, these theophanies not only disclose a personal distinction in the Godhead, but show the pre-existence and divinity of Christ.

For objections and theories of evasion, see Hengstenberg.

The argument from the application of the divine names to Jesus Christ has been in part anticipated given to^Christ ^ '^°^ ^nde^ ^l^e last head. To comprehend its full force, the student must recall the evidences by which we showed that Jehovah, especially, was God's in- communicable name. - But in the New Testament this is not characteristically rendered, except by Kupcoc, which stands also for Adonai, and Adoni, (the latter applied to human masters). Hence, it may be supposed that the Socinian evasion will be more damaging to all the argument from the cases in which the New Testament applies the terms Aufjcu:; 6eu^ to Jesus Christ. That evasion, as you know, is, that the titles, God, Lord, are applied in Bible language to Magnates, Magistrates, and Angels ; and, therefore, their application to Jesus Christ proves not His- proper divinity, but only His dignity. But let it be borne in mind, that if the language of the New Testament is deficient in the power of distinguishing the communicable from the incom- municable titles of God, it also lacks the usage of applying His- titles to exalted creatures. There is no example of such a thing in the New Testament, except those quoted from the Septua- gint. Hence, when the New Testament calls Christ Lord and God, the conclusion is fair, that it attributes to Him proper divinity.

But we argue, first, He is also called God's Son ; and to- show that this means more than when Angels, Church-members, &c., are called sons of God, He is called the beloved Son — God's own Son — God's only-be- gotten Son. See Ps. ii : 7 ; Matt, iii: 17; xvii : 5; Dan. iii:: 25; Matt, iv : 3; xxvi : 6^; xxvii : 43, 54; Luke i : 35 ; Jno.

190 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

iii : 18 ; x : 36; ix : 35 to 37; Rev. ii: 18 ; of v. 8. Here He is called Son, because He can work miracles, because begotten by the Holy Ghost. His title of Son is conceived by His enemies as a claim of proper divinity, which He dies rather than repudi- ate. The attempts to evade the force of the title Only-begotten seem peculiarly impotent. One is, that He is so called, although only a man, because conceived, without natural father, by the Holy Ghost. Adam was still more so, having had neither natural father nor mother. Yet he is never called only-begotten. An- other is, that Christ is Son, because of His commission and in- spiration. In this sense, Moses, Elijah, &c., were generically the same. But see Heb. iii : 1-6. The third is, that He is called God's only-begotten Son, because He enjoyed the privilege of a resurrection. But the dead man of 2 Kings xiii : 21, the son of the Shunemite, and the saints who arose when Christ died, enjoyed the privilege earlier; and Enoch and Elijah enjoyed one still more glorious, a translation.

For the arguments which rebut the Socinian evasions on this head, the student must, for the rest, be referred to text Books and Comments. The following proof-texts will be found justly applicable :

Jno. i: I, 2; x: 30; xx : 31; Acts xx: 28; (somewhat doubtful,) Rom. ix : 5 ; i Tim. iii: 16; Phil, ii : 6 ; Heb. i: 8; I Jno. V : 20.

By the application of a principle of criticism asserted by Dr. Granville Sharpe and Dr. Wordsworth, Middkton. ^ ^ "^^ of the English Church, and afterwards sub- jected to a most searching test, by Dr. Mid- dleton on the Greek Article, this list of divine names applied to Jesus Christ, may be much enlarged. Dr. Middleton thus states it: " When two or more attributives (i.e., adjectives, participles, descriptive substantives) joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first at- tributive, the article is inserted, before the remaining ones omit- ted : e. g., Plutarch : I'oa/.toz^ b unK /.at y.h^(tdvojioz, too tsHuy^xotoc, where vwc and -/.h^ow^oiw:: describe the one person Roscius. (Proper nouns, abstract nouns, and simple names of substances without descriptive connotation, are exempted from this rule). Its correctness is sustained by its consistent rationale, founded on the nature of the Article, by a multitude of classical examples, and by the manner in which the Greek Fathers uniformly cite the passages in question from the New Testament. They are to be presumed to be best acquainted with their own idiom. For instance, Eph. v : 5, we have iv ry^ [■io.adzio mb Xocaroh yji'i Seou. Instead of rendering " Kingdom of Christ and of God," we should read, Kingdom of Him who is Christ and God. In Titus ii : 13, Tou f/eyd/.oo 8eo~j /m.'c I'oj-vjfio^ /jfwji^ 'Jj^mrj Xycarob^ is ren- dered "of the great God and (of) our Saviour Jesus Christ." It should be "of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Mark 1:2
  2. Rev. ii: 18
  3. Acts xx: 28
  4. Heb. i: 8

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I9I

Winer, (Gram. N. T. Greek. Article § 19, 5,) impugns this conclusion, as countenanced by Tholuck and other eminent Germans. His grounds are, that in Titus ii : 1 3 ^cor/jiw:; is suf- ficiently defined by the possessive genitive 'j/Mov, so that, although anarthrous, it may stand for a separate object; and second, that it is inconsistent with Paul's doctrinal system to call Christ the " great God." To the last point we reply, that it is not a grammatical one, (as Winer admits) ; but a doctrinal hypothesis: and an erroneous one. Witness Rom. ix: 5. To advance such a surmise in exegesis of Paul is begging the ques- tion. The emptiness of the first ground is shown by a com- parison of 2 Pet.. 1:1. There, when the writer would separate Christ from the Father as an object of thought, he uses not only the genitive, but the article : iv i-cyvcoaec rob deou /.at Iqaob rou xupco'j jfj.(o)^. Compare also, Jude 4th, end.

The names of God may not be incommunicable, and the application of them might possibly be am- 4. Attributes. biguous therefore ; but when we see the in-

communicable attributes of God given to Jesus Christ, they compose a more irresistible proof that He is very God. This is especially strong when those qualities which God reserves to Himself alone, are ascribed to Jesus Christ. We find, then :

Eternity clearly ascribed to Christ in Ps. cii : 26, as inter- preted in Heb. i: 11, 12; Prov. viii: 23, &c. Is. ix: 6; Micah v : 2 ; Jno. i : 2 ; i Jno. i : 2 ; Rev. i : 7, 8, 17 ; iii : 14 ; xxii : 13 ; and the last three employ the very phraseology in which God asserts His eternity in Is. xiii : IQ, and xliv : 6.

Immutability, the kindred attribute, and necessary corol- lary of eternity. Ps. cii : 26, as before ; Heb. xiii : 8.

Immensity and omnipresence. Matt, xviii : 20 ; xxviii : 20; Jno. iii : 13 : Col. i : 17.

Omniscience. Mark xi : 27; Jno. ii : 24, 25; Heb. iv : 12, 13; Luke vi ; 8 ; Jno. xvi ; 30; xxi : 17; Rev. ii : 23, com- pared with I Kings viii : 39; Jer. xvii : 10. Here Christ knows the most inscrutable of all Beings, God Himself; and the human heart, which God claims it as His peculiar power to fathom.

Sovereignty and power. Jno. v : 17; Matt, xxviii: 18, Heb. i : 3 ; Rev. i : 8 ; xi : 1 5-17. And, in fine, see Col. ii : 9 ; i : 19. The last subdivision will suggest the next head of argu- ment, that from His divine works. But upon the whole, it may be remarked that these ascriptions of divine attributes to Christ leave no evasion. For it is in the nature of things simply impossible that a finite nature should receive infinite endow- ments. Even Omnipotence cannot make a part to contain the whole.

Divine works are ascribed to Christ. Hill, with an affec- tation of philosophic fairness, which he some- ^' "'^ ^' times carries to an unnecessary length, seems

to yield the point to the Arians, in part : that as God has

192 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

endued His different orders of creatures with degrees of power so exceedingly various, He may have given to this exalted creature powers which, to man, appear actually boundless ; and that even the proposition, that God might enable him to create a world, by filling him with His mighty power, does not appear necessarily absurd. But it seems clear, that there is a limit plain and distinct between those things which finite and depend- ent power can, by a vast extension, be enabled to do : and those for which all measures of created power are alike incompetent. There are many things which are superhuman, which perhaps are not superangelic. Satan may perhaps have power to move an atmospheric storm, before which man and his mightiest works would be as stubble. But Satan is as unable to create a fly out of nothing, as is man. For the performance of this kind of works, by deputation, no increase of finite power can prepare a creature. Moreover, to create a world such as ours, to direct it by a controlling providence, to judge its rational inhabitants, so as to apportion to every man according to his works ; all this implies the possession of omnipresence, infinite knowledge, memory, and attention, as impossible for a creature to exercise, as infinite power. But, however, this may be, Scripture always ascribes creation to God as a divine work. This is done, first, in many express passages, as Jer. X : 10-12: Ps. xcv : civ; Rev. iv : 10, II ; and second, by all those passages, as Ps. xix : 1-7, in which we are directed to read the greatness and character of God in the works of creation. If He used some other rational agent in the work, why is Creator so emphatically His title ? And why are we so often referred to His works to learn His attributes ? And once more, the most noted passages, as Jno. i : 1-3, in which creation is ascribed to the Son, contain most emphatic assertions of His partaking of the divine essence ; so that it is plain the divinity of the work was in the writer's mind.

The space allotted to this argument will forbid my going into the Socinian evasions of the several texts, tortuous and varied as they are. The most important of them may be seen handled with great skill by Dr. Hill, Bk. iii, ch. 3 and 4. But we clearly find the following divine works ascribed to Jesus Christ :

Creation of the world. Prov. viii : 23, 2J, &c.; Jno. i : 1-3 ; Col. i: 15-17; Heb. i: i, 3, 10. And along with this, may be mentioned his sustentation of all things, asserted in the same passages.

Miracles, performed, not by deputed, but by autocratic power. Jno. v; 21; vi : 40; Acts iv : 7, 10 ; ix : 34; cf. Jno. v: 36; Markii: 8-1 1. Jno. ii : 19; x: 18: Rom. i : 4.

Forgiving sin. Mark ii : 10.

Judging men and angels. Matt, xxv ; 31, 32; 2 Cor. v: 10; Rom. xiv: 10 ; Acts xvii : 31; Jno. v: 22. True, it is said that the Twelve shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 93

tribes of Israel: Matt, xiv: 28, and that the saints shall judge angels ; but other Scriptures explain this, that they shall be merely assessors of Jesus Christ.

Last. The peculiar worship of God is given to Christ. See

Matt, xxviii : 19; Luke xxiv : 52; Jno. v:

orsiip. 2^ . Acts vii : 59, 60; Jno. xiv: i; and Ps.

12, compared with Jer. xvii : 5; Acts x: 25, 26; i Cor. i :

Phil, ii : 10 ; Heb, i :. 6 ; Rev. i : 5,6; vii : 10 ; v : 13.

In connection, weigh these passages, as showing how unlikely the Scripture would be to permit such worship, (or Christ Himself,) if He were not proper God. \s. xlii : 8 ; Matt, iv: 16; or Luke iv : 8; Mark xii : 29; Acts xiv : 14, 15; Rev. xix : 10; xxii : 9. Remember that the great object of Scrip- ture is to reclaim the world from idolatry.

The Arian and Socinian evasions are well stated and refuted by Hill, Bk. iii, ch. 7, § 3.

LECrURE XVIII.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. ix: 5
  2. Heb. i: 11
  3. Prov. viii: 23
  4. Col. i: 15-17
  5. Rom. xiv: 10
  6. Acts x: 25

SYLLABUS

1. What is the doctrine of the Socinians, the Arians and the Orthodox concern- ing the Holy Ghost? See

See Hagenback, Hist, of Doctr. on Arianism. Hill, bk. iii, ch. 9. Turrettin, Log. iii, Qu, 30. Dr. Wm. Cunninghnm, Hist. Theol. ch. 9, ^ 4.

2. Prove the personality of the Holy Ghost.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 30, | i-ii. Owen on the Holy Ghost, bk. i, ch's 2, 3. Dick, Lect. ;^;^. Hill, as above. Dwight's Theol. Sermon 70th. Knapp^

? 39-

3. Prove from the Scriptures the Divinity of this Person.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 30, § 12, end. Dick, Hill and Dwight as above. Knapp, ^ 40.

4. State the controversy between the Greek and Latin Churches, on the Proces- sion of the Holy Ghost. Which party is right? Why?

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 31. Dick and Hill as above.

5. Show how the offices of the 2nd and 3d Persons in redemption imply the possession of proper divinity by them.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 24; Loc. xiii, Qu. 3. Dick, Lect. 32. Hill, bk. ii, ch. 8, end. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo ?

' I '*HE Arian controversy was so fiercely agitated con- "^ cerning the divinity of the 2d. Person that the 3d. Per- son was almost overlooked in it, by both trine S'HJyGW?" Parties. It is stated that Arius held the Holy Ghost to be a person — but a creature — the first creature namely, which the Son brought into exist- ence by the Father's instruction, after His own creation. He was thus, y-laaa y-caim-(K. On the other hand, few, perhaps, of the orthodox, except Athanasius, saw clearly the necessit}^ of extending to Him likewise the same essence, {bfwooatov,) with the 13*

194 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Father; and attributing to Him in the work of Redemption, proper, divine attributes. The most of them, e. g., a great anti- Arian writer, Hilary of Aries, contented themselves with saying that He was a Person, and was spoken of in the Scriptures as a divine Spirit, and God's beneficent Agent in sanctification ; but, farther than this, the Scriptures did not bear Him out. A little after the middle of the 4th century, Macedonius, primate of Constantinople, was led, by his semi-Arian views, to teach that the Holy Ghost was but a name for the divine power and influences, diffused from the Father through the Son. It was this error, along with others, occasioned the revisal of the Nicene Creed by the second CEcumenical Council, that of Con- stantinople. Yet even this, while attributing to the Holy Ghost a procession from the Father, and the same worship and glory attributed to the Father and Son, and while calling Him Life- giving Lord, still did not expressly ascribe to Him the phrase oi).oo'jaio-j zuj naTjii. The consubstantial divinity of the Holy Ghost, however, continued to be the practical doctrine of the Church Catholic. When the Socinians, in the i6th century, sought to overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity, they repre- sented all that is said of the Holy Ghost as mere parallel locutions for the Godhead itself, or as impersonations of the power, energy, wisdom, or general influence of the Godhead on created souls. The words Holy Ghost, then, are, with them, the name, not of a Person, but of an abstraction.

Hence, the first task which we should assume, is to learn

jT- p .„ Y what the Scriptures teach concerning the

personality of this Being. We may premise,

with Dick, that it is natural and reasonable that the Scriptures

would say less to evince the personality and divinity of the

•Holy Ghost than of the Son ; because in the order of the divine

manifestation in Redemption, the Son is naturally and properl)'

revealed first. The purchase precedes the application of

Redemption. But after a plurality in unity was once established,

it was easy to admit a trinity.

Now, we may freely admit that in several places, repre- sented by Ps. cxxxix : 7, the word Spirit is a mere parallelism to express God's self. We may freely admit that were there no passages, except those in which the Holy Ghost is said to be be shed forth, as in Is. xxxii : 15, it would not be proved that it might not mean only God's influences. But there are many others which admit of no such explanation, (a) A number of personal acts are attributed to the Holy Ghost, as creation. Gen. i : 2 ; Ps. civ : 30, the generation of Christ's body and soul. Matt, i : 18 ; Luke i : 35. Teaching and revealing. John xiv : 26 ; XV : 25, 26 ; Gal. iv : 6 ; Rom. viii : 16 ; I Tim. iv : i ; i Pet. i : 1 1 ; 2 Peter i : 21 ; Is. xi : 2, 3. To search the decree of God,

1 Cor ii : 10. To set apart to the ministry, Is. Ixi : i ; Acts xiii;

2 : XX : 28. To intercede(-<'/'/fm/^r(c) John xvi : 7 ; Rom. viii : 27.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 95

To have volitions, i Cor. xii : 11. To regenerate and sanctify, John iii : 6; 2 Cor. iii : 6 ; Eph. ii: 22, &c. Add here, as show- ing the personal agencies of the Holy Ghost, Luke xii: 12; Acts V : 32 : XV : 28 ; xvi : 6 ; xxviii : 25 ; Rom. xv : 16 ; i Cor. ii : 13 ; Heb. ii : 4; iii : 7.

(b) The Holy Ghost is said to exercise the active feelings of a person ; to be tempted. Acts v: 9 ; to be vexed, Is. Ixiii : 10 ; to be grieved, Eph. iv : 30.

But here we must meet the well known evasion of the Socinian, who pleads that these are but hefe.° P'°'°P°P°''^ instances of the trope of Impersonation, like those of Rom. vii : 1 1 ; iii : 19 ; i Cor. xiii : 7; Gen. iv : 10; Heb. xii: 24. We will not plead with Turrettin, that the explanation is inapplicable to the Holy Ghost ; because impersonations are usually of things corporeal and inanimate, as when the blood of Abel cried, &c ; for the case of i Cor. xiii: 7, proves that the Scripture does not limit the figure to this class of objects, but sometimes impersonates abstractions. The true answers are, that the Socinian explanation is inapplicable, because no candid writer uses an impersonation, without placing something in his context, or afterwards dropping the figure, so as to show unmistakably to the reader, that he meant only an impersonation. The force of this is only seen when the reader gathers the multitude of places in the Scriptures, where such language prevails, speaking of the Holy Ghost as though He were a person ; and when he finds the utter absence of the proper qualification, (b) The explanation is impossible, because in a multitude of places the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Godhead, whose impersonated attribute He would be on this supposition ; e, g., when it is said, " charity suffereth long and is kind," the only possible meaning is, that the charitable man does so. When it is said God's Spirit will guide us into all truth, if the figure of impersonation were there, the meaning would be, that God, who is spiritual, will guide us. But in that very passage the spirit that guides is distinguished from God. " Whatsoever he shall hear, (i. e., from the Father and Son,) that shall he speak." This leads us to argue:

(c) That the Holy Ghost must be a Person, because dis- tinguished so clearly from the Father, whose quality or influ- ence He would be, if He were an abstraction ; and farther, because distinguished in some places alike from the Father and Son ; e. g.. He is sent by both. John xiv : 16 ; xv : 26; xvi : 7. The TZ'^ihiixi, though neuter, is constructed with the masculine pronouns. John xvi : 13; Eph. i: 13, 14. He concurs with the Father and Son, in acts or honors which are to them undoubtedly personal: and hence, to Him likewise. Matt, xxviii : 19; 2 Cor. xiii; 14.

(d) His presence is represented by visible symbols, a thing which is never done for a mere abstraction elsewhere in Script-

196 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ure, and is, indeed, logically preposterous. For the propriety of the material symbol depends wholly on some metaphorical resemblance between the accidents of the matter, and the attri- butes of the Being symbolized ; e. g., Shekinah represents God. Its brightness represents His glory. Its purity — His holiness. Its fierce heat — His jealousy, &c., &c. Now, if the dove. Matt, iii : 16, and the fiery tongue, Acts ii : 3, symbolize the Holy Ghost, and He an abstraction, the analogy has to be sought between the accidents or qualities of the dove and the fire, and the attributes of an abstraction ! [Quid I'ides.) But moreover, in i\Iatt. iii : 16, the three persons all attest their presence at once — the Father, in His voice from heaven ; the Son, in His human person ; the Spirit, in the descending dove. Here, surely, the dove does not person- ate an abstract attribute of the Father or Son, for this would be to personate them as possessing that attribute. But they, at the moment, had their distinct personal representations.

(e) The personality of the Holy Ghost is most plainly im- plied in the act of sinning against Him, committed by Ananias. Acts v : 3. Israel, Is. Ixiii : 10; the Pharisees, Matt, xii : 31, 32. Some one may say: that i Tim. vi: i, speaks of the sin of blasphemy against God's word and doctrine. Such an explan- ation is impossible in the above cases, and especially in Matt, xii: 31, 32. For if the Holy Ghost only represents an attribute of God, then to blaspheme that attribute is simply to blaspheme God. But in this case, the acts of blaspheming the Father and Son, are expressly distinguished from that of blaspheming the Holy Ghost, and have different grades of guilt assigned them.

(f) It is also implied that the Holy Ghost is a Person, by the distinction made between Him and His gifts. i Cor. xii: 4, 8. If the Holy Ghost were an influence, or exertion of God's power on the creature, as He must be held to be in these places, by Socinians, then He would be virtually here, the gift of a gift! This leads us to notice a class of texts, in which the Socian explanation appears supremely ridiculous; it is those in which the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the power of God. Now, if He be but a name of God's influences and energies upon the souls of men, the general word power, (ovv«/x'c) ought to represent the idea of Him with substantial correctness. Then, when Luke iv : 14 says : Christ returned from the desert to Galilee " in the power of the Spirit," it is equivalent to : " In the power of the power." Acts i: 8. But ye shall receive power, after that the holy power is come unto you." i Cor. ii : 4. " And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the power, and of power." Also Actsx: 38; Rom. xv: 13, 19.

The Holy Ghost then, is not an abstraction, nor an influ- ence merely, but a Person, in the full sense in which that word is applied to the Father and Son, possessing will and active principles, intelligence, and action.

vine.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. ii: 22
  2. Luke xii: 12
  3. Acts v: 9
  4. Heb. xii: 24
  5. Eph. i: 13
  6. Acts i: 8
  7. Rom. xv: 13

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. I97

The next step is to prove His proper divinity ; and this has now become comparatively easy. We fol- 3. This Person IS Di- j^^ ^■^^ familiar order, showing that He has in Scripture the names, attributes, works, and worship of God. The principles upon which the argument proceeds, are the same already unfolded in the argument for the divinity of Christ, (a) We find the name Jehovah applied to the Spirit, by comparing Exod. xvii : 7, with Heb. iii : 9 ; 2 Sam. xxiii : 2, Is. vi : 9, with Acts xxviii : 25 ; possibly Jer. xxxi : 31, compared with Heb. x: 15. The name God, is by plain implication ascribed to Him in Acts v : 3, 4, &c., and i Cor. iii : 16, with vi : 19. The name Highest, seems to be given Him in Luke i : 35. (b) The attributes are ascribed to Him ; as omnipresence, implied by i Cor. iii : 16, and by the promises of the Holy Ghost to an innumerable multitude of Christians at once. Omniscience, i Cor. ii : 10, with v. 1 1 ; omnipresence, I Cor. xii: 13. The same thing appears from His agency in inspiration and prophecy. Jno. xvi : 13; 2 Pet. i:2i. Sov- ereignty, I Cor. xii: ii. (c) The w^orks of God, as of creation. Gen. i : 2. Preservation, Ps. civ : 30. Miracles, Matt, xii : 28 ; I Cor. xii : 4. Regeneration and sanctification, Jno. iii : 5 ! i Cor. vi: ii; 2 Thess. ii : 13; i Pet. i: 2. Resurrection of the dead, Rom. viii : ii. (d) The worship of God is also attri- buted to Him, in the formula of Baptism, the Apostolic bene- diction, and the prayer of Rev. i : 4. Other passages cited seem to me of very questionable application.

Against the Spirit's personality, it has been urged, that it is preposterous to speak of a Person as shed Objections answered. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ . ^s constituting the mate- rial of an anointing, as in i Jno. ii : 27 ; whereas, if the Holy Ghost is understood as only a name for God's influences, the figure is proper. The answer is, that the Holy Spirit's gifts are meant, when the giver is named, a most common and natu- ral metonymy. The expressions are surely no harder to reconcile, than those of "putting on Christ," to be "baptized into Christ." Eph. v: 30; Rom. xiii : 14; Gal. iii: 27.

To the proper divinity of the Holy Ghost it has been objected, that He is evidently subordinate, inasmuch as He is sent by the Father and the Son, and is limited in His messa- ges by what they commit to Him. John xvi : 7, 13. The obvious answer is, that this subordination is only economical, relating to the official work to which the Divine Spirit conde- scends for man's redemption, and it no more proves His inferiority, than the humiliation of the Son, His.

The Nicene Creed, as settled A. D. 381, by the Council of Constantinople, had stated that the Holy 4. History of Ques- Q^ost proceedeth from the Father, saying tion of rrocession. ^ ■ r • c ^i o

nothmg of any procession trom the bon. But the Western Doctors, especially Augustine, leaned more

198 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and more towards the view, that His personal relation connected Him in the same inscrutable way, with the Father and the Son. As the Arian Christians of the Gothic nations, who had occu- pied the Western provinces of the empire, began to come into the Orthodox Catholic Church, it was judged more important, to assert the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son equally with the Father, in order to eradicate any lingering ideas of a subordination of substance in the Son, which converts from Arianism might be supposed to feel. Hence, we are told, a provincial council in Toledo, A. D. 458, first enacted that the Latin form of the creed should receive the addition of the words, filioqiie. But this, although popular in Spain and France, was not adopted in Rome, even so late as A. D. 809, when Charlemagne endeavored in vain to secure its adoption by the Bishop of Rome. But the Latin Christians were contin- ually using it more extensively, to the indignation of the Greeks. This addition, as yet unwarranted, was the bone of contention (along with others,) throughout the 9th and subse- quent centuries. The Latin Primate seems to have sanctioned the addition to the creed, about the nth century, proceeding upon that general doctrinal consent, which the Latin Church had, for so many centuries, held to be the voice of inspiration, accord- ing to the raaxim of Vincentius of Lerins. In the great Council of Lyons, A. D. 1374, the Greeks, eager for a compromise, on account of the pressure of the Mohammedans, submitted to the Latin doctrine. But they soon returned to their old views with new violence. Again, in 1439, ^'^^ kingdom of Constantinople, then tottering to its fall, sulsmitted to a partial compromise, in order to secure Western support ; and it was agreed in the Council of Florence (adjourned to Pisa,) that it should be said : the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father through the Son. But even this, the Greeks soon repudiated ; and both parties have returned, ever since, to their opposition.

To the dispassionate mind, the dispute cannot but appear

of small importance, and the grounds of both ^_ Argument Inconclu- parties uncertain. The basis on which the

idea itself of an eternal and necessar}^ rela- tion of procession rests, seems to me scarcely sufficiently solid without the analogy of the Son. It is composed of the facts that the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit, (-vsv/i«,) of the Father, (from -vsoj,) and that in one solitary passage, (John xv : 26,) it is said, He "proceedeth from the Father." All parties admit, that if there is such an eternal relation as procession, it is inscrutable. On the one hand, the Greeks rely on the fact that He is never said to proceed from the Son ; and on the ancient view of the Greek scholastic fathers, that the Father alone is the //'/f-^, or Tzr^-f^j 'Hzoo. On the other hand, the Latins urge, that the Holy Ghost is stated to be related to the Son, in the Scriptures, in every way, except procession, just as He is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 1 99

to the Father. He is the " Spirit of the Son," as well as the Spirit of the Father, (and they suppose the very name, Spirit, expresses His eternal relation as much as the word procession.) He is sent by the Son, and He is sent by the Father ; He shows the things of the Son as much as those of the Father; for Christ says, (John xvi : 15,) "All things that the Father hath are mine." But as Dick well observes : unless it can be proved that spiration, mission, and speaking the things of Christ, exhaust the whole meaning of procession, the demonstration is not complete. And since the whole meaning of procession is not intelligible to human minds, that quality of meaning cannot be known, except by an express assertion of God Himself. Such an express word we lack ; and hence, it appears to me, that this is a subject on which we should not dogmatize. Should it be that the Son does not share with the Father the eternal spiration of the Spirit, this would no more imply an essential inferiority of the second Person, than does his filiation. The essence is common to the three Persons ; the relations incom- municable. Enough for us to know the blessed truth, that under the Covenant of Grace, the Divine Spirit condescends economically to commit the dispensation of His saving influ- ences to the Son as our king, and to come at His bidding, according to the agreement, to subdue, sanctify, and save us. It mav be said, that, as there is a peculiar point of view from which the grace, condescension and majesty of both the other persons are especially displayed, calling for our gratitude and reverence, so the same thing is true of the Holy Ghost. The Father condescends, in giving his Son. The Son, in assuming our nature and guilt; and the Spirit, in making His immediate abiding place in our guilty breasts, and there purging out the depravity, which His majesty and justice, as very God, would rather prompt Him to avenge.

The nature of the offices performed by the 2d and 3d

-p,. . .^ r , persons in redemption, implies and demands a 5. Divinity of 2nd ^ ^■ ■ -^ ^t-i • i. -n

and 3d persons prov- proper divmity. This argument will require

ed by offices in re- us to anticipate some truths concerning the demption. mediatorial offices, and the doctrines of

redemption ; but I trust that sufficient general knowledge exists in all well-informed young Christians, to make the dis- cussion intelligible to them. This argument is peculiarly important and interesting, although too little urged by theolo- gians, ancient or modern. It shows that this high mystery of the Trinity has a most extensive practical aspect ; and that the scheme of the Socinian not only impugns a mystery, but makes havoc of the Christian's most practical hopes.

Christ performs the work of our redemption in three offices, as prophet, priest, and king. The offices of the Holy Ghost, in applying redemption, connect themselves with the first in enlightening and guiding us, and with the third in con-

200 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

verting us. I shall, therefore, couple the evidence of His divinity from those two offices, with what I have to say of the Son's under the same heads.

1st. Christ and His Spirit cannot be the sufficient guides of Christ and Holy ^n immortal spirit, unless they have a truly Ghost, as Guides, must infinite understanding. If our view be lim- ^^ °''""^- ited only to the preparation of a Bible for us,

and all the constant, varied, endless, inward guidance be left out of view, then the wonder would be, how one moderate vol- ume could be made to contain principles sufficient for an infinite diversity of applications. No human book does this. To draw up, select topics for, digest such a code, required omniscience.

But this is not all. We have daily inward guidance, by the Holy Ghost and providences applying the word. Now, so end- lessly diversified and novel are the exigencies of any one soul, and so eternal and infinite the consequence connected, it may be, with any one act, that it requires an infinite understanding to lead one soul, infallibly, through its mortal Hfe, in such a way as to insure safe consequences to all eternity. How much more to lead all Christians at once?

But this is not all. Saints will be under duty in heaven. They will have approached towards moral stability and wisdom to an indefinite degree, by means of their ages of holy action and strengthening habits. But they will still not be omniscient nor absolutely immutable. These perfections belong to God only. To a fallible creature, every precept and duty implies a possible error and transgression, just as a right branch in a highway implies a left. But as the saint's existence is pro- tracted to immortality, the number and variety of these moral exigencies become literally infinite. Hence, had he only a finite wisdom and holiness to guide him through them, the pos- sibility of error, sin and fall at soine one of these tests, would become a probability, and would grow ever towards a violent one, approaching a certainty. The gospel promises that the saint's glorified state shall be everlasting and infallible. This can only be accomplished by his having the guidance of infi- nite perfections. But since we are assured that " the Lamb is their light," we see at once, that his light is none other than that of omniscience.

2d. None but a properly divine being could undertake Christ as a Priest ^^^"^^'^ pnestl)' work. Had he been the must be divine. ' "oblest creature in heaven, his life and pow-

ers would have been the property of God, our offended Judge ; and our Advocate could not have claimed, as He does, John x: i8, that He had i^o'jau/.^ to lay down His Hfe and to take it again. Then : unless above law. He could have no imputable, active obedience. Third : unless sustained by omnipotence, unless sustained by inward omnipotence. He

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. x: 15
  2. Eph. v: 30
  3. Gal. iii: 27

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 20I

could never have endured the wrath of the Almighty for the sins of the world ; it would have sunk Him into perdition. Fourth : had there not been a divine nature to reflect an infi- nite dignity upon His person, His suffering the curse of sin for a few years, would not have been a satisfaction sufficient to propitiate God for the sins of a world. After the sacrifice, comes intercession. His petitioners and their wants are so numerous, that unless He were endowed with sleepless atten- tion, an omnipotence which can never tire, an infinite under- standing, omnipresence, and exhaustless kindness, He could not wisely and graciously attend to so many and multifarious calls. Here we see how worthless are Popish intercessors, who are only creatures.

3. Christ, through His Holy Ghost, begins His kingly work with us, by " subduing us unto Him- vin^el""^'"^ "''''' ^''^'" self" This is effected in the work of regen- eration. Now we shall see, when we discuss effectual calling, that this is a directly almighty work. Our sanctification also demands omniscience. For he who would cure the ulcer, must probe it ; but the heart is deceitful beyond all created ken. If the Holy Ghost, who is the practical, indwelling agent of these works, is a creature, then we have but a creature redemption, no matter how divine the Beings that send Him. For the channel of communication to our souls being finite, the communications would be limited. If you have the whole Atlantic Ocean connected with your reser- voir by an inch pipe, you can draw but an inch of w^ater at once. The vastness of the source does you no good, beyond the calibre of the connecting pipe.

Moreover, Christ has all power committed to His hand, for the Church's good. It requires omniscience to comprehend this, and omnipotence to wield it, especially when we recall the power of our enemies. See Rom. viii : 38, 39; Eph. vi : 12.

In fine, all is enhanced, when we remember that our stake is the soul, our all, whose loss is irreparable. There is no com- fort unless we have an infallible dependence.

SYLLABUS

1. State the opinions of Socinians, Arians and Orthodox, concerning the genera- tion and filiation of the Son.

Turrettin, Loc. iii, Qu. 27 and 29. Hill's Divinity, bk, iii, ch. 10. Dr. S. Hopkins' System, Vol. i, p. 362, &c. Dick, Lect. 29. Cunningham's Hist^ TheoL, ch. 9, § 3. Knapp, ^ 43. Alexander Campbell, " Christian System," ch. 4.

2. What were the opinions bf the ante-Nicehe Fathers, concerning the subordina- tion, of the 2nd and 3d Persons, the three-fold generation of the Son, and the distinc- tion of A6yo(; £v6iai}£T0(; and Aojof lipoooptKor^

The same citations. Knapp, Lect. 42. Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. i, p. 585.

3. Prove the eternal generation of the Son; refute the common objections, and overthrow the Socinian and Arian explanations thereof.

Same citations. " Letters on the Eternal Sonship of Christ," by Dr. Samuel Miller, iii, iv. Watson's Theol. Inst., pt. ii, ch. 12, § 5.

4. What'is the difference between the generation of the Son, and the Procession of the Spirit ? Can the latter be proved eternal ?

Same citations.

J THE discussions and definitions of the more formal and • scholastic Theologians, concerning the personal distinctions in the Godhead, have always seemed to me to present a strik- ing instance of the reluctance of the human mind to confess its own weakness. For, let any read them with the closest atten- tion, and he will perceive that he has acquired little more than a set of terms, whose abstruseness serves to conceal from him their practical lack of meaning. It is debated whether the personal distinction is real, or formal, or virtual, or personal, or modal. Turrettin decides that it may best be called modal — i. e., as a distinction in the Diodus subsistcndi. But what those modes of subsistence are, remains none the less inscrutable ; and the chief reason why the term modal is least objectionable, seems to be that it is most general. After all, the mind must be content with these facts, the truth of which it may apprehend,, although their full meaning cannot be comprehended by us ; that there is an eternal and necessary distinction between the essence and the persons, the former being absolute, and the latter relative ; that the whole essence is truly in each person, with all its attributes ; that yet the essence is not divided or distributed between them, but single and indivisible ; that the distinction of persons is one truly subsisting, subsisting eter- nally by the very necessity of the divine nature, and not merely relative to our apprehensions of it; and that the persons are not convertible the one into the other, nor the properties of the one predicable of another.

Each Person has its peculiar property, which is not indeed

constitutive of, but distinctive of it. The

Personal Properries. ^^^^^^^^ ^f ^he Father is to be unbegotten -

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2O3

of the Son, generation ; and of the Spirit, procession. Hence, three characteristic relations — in the Father, paternity; in the Son, fihation ; and in the Holy Ghost, spiration. That there are such properties and relations, we know ; what they are, we do not know.

We find ourselves speaking almost inevitably of 1st, 2d,

and 3d persons; thus implying some order 2. Order of the Per- -^^ ^^^^ persons. No ortliodox Christian, of sons. ,

course, understands this order as relating to

a priority of time, or of essential dignity. To what, then, does it relate ? And is there any substantial reason for assign- ing such an order at all? We reply: There must be; when we find that where the three persons are mentioned by Scrip- ture, in connection, as in Matt, xxviii : 19, &c., &c., they are usually mentioned as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and not in reversed order ; that in all allusions to the properties and rela- lations of the three, the Father is always spoken of (e. g. the word Father) by some term or trait implying primary rank, and the other two, by some implying secondariness ; as Christ is His Son, the Holy Ghost His Spirit ; they are sent. He the Sender; and in their working, there is always a sort of refer- ence to the Father's primariness, (if I may coin a word,) directing their operation. See also Jno. v; 26; x:38; xiv: ii; xvii : 21 ; Heb. i: 3.

But if it be asked, what is the primariness, the answer is not so easy. It was the usual answer of the ante- FaThers^erLi?'^"^ Nicene, and especially the Greek Fathers, that it indicated the order of derivation, that the personality of the Son is from that of the Father, not the Father's from the Son ; and so of the Holy Ghost. (And so far, it must be allowed, the fair force of the Scripture facts just stated, carries them properly enough.) The Father they regarded as d.uacTco^, as Tirjyr^ Oeou, or 'If'X'j 0^ou, the Son and Holy Ghost as acnacro:, as 9so: ex 6soo, and as deriving their personal subsistence from the eternal act of the Father in com- municating the divine essence to them in those modes of subsistence. And this view was embodied in both forms of the Nicene Creed, of A. D. 325 and 381, where the Son is called, " God of God, Light of Light, and very God of very God ;" language never applied to the Father as to the Son. Their idea is, that the Father, the original Godhead, eternally generates the person, not the substance of the Son, and produces by pro- cession the person, not the substance of the Holy Ghost, by inscrutably communicating the whole indivisible divine substance, essentially identical with Himself in these two modes of subsistence ; thus eternally causing the two persons, by causing the two additional modes of subsistence. This state- ment, they suppose, was virtually implied in the very relation of terms, Father and His Son, Father and His Tcvzuiia, by the

204 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

primariness of order always assigned to the Father, and by the distinction in the order of working. And they rehed upon this view to vindicate the doctrine of the Trinity from the charge of tritheism. You will probably think, with me, that its value for this last purpose is questionable, for this reason : that the modes of subsistence of the persons being wholly inscrutable, the true answer to the charge of tritheism is to be found for our minds, in that fact, coupled with the Scriptural affirmation, that God is one as truly as the persons are three. Hence no explan- ation of the derivation of one subsistence from another really brings us any nearer to the secret, how it is one and three. But the answers, which the advocates of this .Patristic view pre- sented to objections, seem to my mind much more consistent than Dick would intimate. Was it objected, that they repre- sented the 2d and 3d persons as beginning to exist, and thus robbed them of a true self-existence and eternity? These Fathers could answer with justice: No; the processes of personal derivation were eternal, immanent processes, and the Father has a personal priority, not in time, but only in causation ; e. g.. the sun's rays hav^e existed precisely as long as he has ; yet the rays are from the sun and not the sun from the rays. And the 2d. person may be derived as to His personality, ??£oc ^y- deo~j, and yet self-existent God ; because His essence is the one self-existent essence, and it is only His personality which is derived. They regard self-existence as an attribute of essence, not of person. Was it objected that these derived personalities were unequal to the ist. person? They answer: No ; because the Father put His whole essence in the two other modes of subsistence. Was it said, that then the personal subsistence of the 2d. and 3d. was dependent on the good pleasure of the ist. ; and, therefore, revocable at His pleasure? They answered, that the generation and procession were not free, contingent acts, but necessary and essential acts, free indeed, yet necessitated by the very perfection of the eternal substance. You will perceive that I have not used the word subordination, but derivation, to express this personal relation. If you ask me whether I adopt the Patristic view, thus cleared, as my own, I reply, that there seems to me nothing in it inconsistent with revealed truth ; yet it seems to me rather a rational explanation of revealed facts, than a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, none should dogmatize.

It may be well to explain, also, how the Rationalizing \6yoc hSm^eroc, &c. fathers connected their theory of the Trinit>- with this generation of the Son, Attempting to comprehend the Divine essence through the analogy of the human spirit, and according to the Platonic metaphysics, they said that the Son or A'tyo:, is God's Reason or intellective action ; and the Holy Ghost His (/"■>//■, or emotive and vital activity. In the ages of eternity the Son was the Joync i:\.o'j/.iltz(K, or

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 20$,

Ratio iiisita, God's reason acting only by self-comprehension, according to Prov. viii : 22 : John i : 2. When, in time, God began to effectuate His decree in works ot creation and provi- dence, He became the Abjoc. Tifioil'Oficxoz, or ratio prolata. When at length He was born of the flesh for man's redemption, He be- came the Abyo^i tvaany.r/o', incarnate. Hence, the Father maybe said to have made three productions of the Son — one from eternity, one when, in time, the Son was sent out as Agent of God's working, one when He was born of the Virgin.

This is the transition point, to enable us t^ comprehend the

views of the Arians concerning Christ's gen- ation eternat'^ ^ ^^^^' oration. These heretics usually admitted the

justice of the metaphysical explanation of God's immanent acts. But, said they, as the human mind has not one, but a numerous series of acts of intellection, fo;^//«ra,so- a fortiori, the infinite mind of God. There is, of course, some primary voYjixa, and this is the eternal, immanent Abyo:; of John i : 2. There are other vorjiw.Ta in the divine mind, and some one of these is the one embodied, in time, in the creation of the Son, " by whom He made the worlds." Thus they endeav- oured to reconcile the creation of the Son out of nothing, with the eternity of a Aoyo^. How worthless all this is, I need not say.

The Arians, like all others, heterodox and orthodox, find

in the Scriptures ascriptions of a peculiar thfreoS!"'^ language Sonship of Christ, needing some explanation.

And we might as well array the more general of these Scripture representations here, as at a later stage of the discussion. I shall then pursue the method of bringing the several explanations of the Arian, Socinian, and orthodox, to the test of these Scriptures. The Messiah is called the Son of God, directly or indirectly, once in the Old Testament, and about one hundred and sixteen times in the New Testament, and the Father receives that title two hundred and twenty times ; while no creature is ever called the Son of God, in the singular number, except Adam. Luke iii : 38. And there the peculiarity is accounted for by the fact that it was tJie Evangel- ist's purpose to show that Adam, like Christ, had no human father. Christ is God's beloved Son. Matt iii: 17; xvii : 5; Mark i : 1 1, &c. He is the Son who alone knoweth the Father. Luke x : 22 ; Jno. x: 15; and who reveals Him. He claims God as " His own Father," in such a sense as to make the Jews believe that He made Himself equal with God. Jno. v: 17-19. He is a Son to be honoured as the Father is. Jno. v: 23. He doeth whatever He seeth the Father do. Jno. v: 19. He is one with the Father. Jno. x : 30. He is in the bosom of the Father, though incarnate. Jno. i : 18 ; "and is the only -begotten of the Father. Jno. i: 14; and izponnzoxoz rAar^c. xz'msoj::. Col. i: 15. Here, surely, is evidence of some peculiar relation other

206 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

than that borne by God's rational, or even His holy creatures generall}'.

Now, says the Arian, this Divine Creature is called the Arian Exposition. fon, and only-begotten, because He is the nrst Creature the rather ever produced out of nothing, and the only one whom He produced immediately, by His own agency; all subsequent productions, including those of the Holy Ghost, being through the agency of this Son. He is called Son, moreover, because He has received a peculiar adoption, is deputized God to other creatures, and a splendid creature-image of the divine glory. He is also called Son, as being born by miraculous power of a virgin, and being consti- tuted God's Messenger to fallen man. And last : He is Son, as being the Heir, by adoption, of God's throne and glory.

The Socinian makes Jesus Christ only a holy man : and in

c„„:„:„ , ,. his eyes His peculiar Sonship means nothing Socinian explanation. -^ , , .'^ ^^ , ^ _ . .&

more tjian that He was born of a virgin without human father, that He was adopted by God, and endued with most eminent spiritual endowments, that He was sent forth as God's chosen mouth-piece to call a fallen race to repentance and obedience ; and that He received the privilege of an immediate glorification, including His resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to God's throne.

But among Trinitarians themselves there are some, who , give to Christ's Sonship a merely temporal

A peculiar view of „^ • t^i i i- .1 , ^1 1 , ^1

some Trinitarians. meaning. Ihey believe that the 2d and the

3d persons are as truly divine as we do ; they believe with us, that there is a personal distinction, which has been eternal ; but they do not believe that the terms gen- eration and procession were ever intended by Scripture to express that eternal relation. On the contrary, they suppose that they merely denote the temporal functions which the persons assume for man's redemption. Such appears to have been the view of the Hollander Roell, of Dr. Ridgeley, in Eng; of Emmons and Moses Stuart, of New Eng.; and of the notorious Alex. Campbell.

Now, to begin with the lowest scheme, the Socinian : it

Socinian E ' utterly fails at the first blush of the contest.

fails.*^'"'^" ^^ ^"^ °" It does not explain why Christ is called the

Son, while all other creatures are called sons in the plural only. It does not explain why He was the beloved Son, why He comprehended and revealed the Father, why He was of equal honour, and identical substance, rather than other holy creatures. It utterly fails to explain why He is only-begotten; for. Adam was begotten by God's direct power, not only without father, but without mother. His endowments and His mission only differed, according to Socin- ians, in degree from those of other prophets, who were, there- fore, in this sense, as truly sons as He. And last : His resur-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 20/

rection and glorification leave Him behind Enoch and Elijah, who were translated.

The Arian scheme also fails to explain how His Sonship

made Him one with the Father, and of equal faik''^" explanation honour; how it capacitates Him to be the

revealer and image of the Father's person and glory in a manner generically different from all other crea- tures ; and how it proves Him only-begotten. It leaves unsat- isfied the declaration, that while they were xziacz, He was TzncoTozoxo:; : and begotten before every creature ; so that He would be produced in a totally different way from, and pro- duced before, the whole creature class to which, on their scheme. He belongs ! And last, like the Socinian scheme, it leaves wholly unexplained how a creature (therefore finite) could be competent to the exercise of all the works he seeth the Father do, and to a divine glorification.

Against the third view I would urge the general force of

the passages I collected above. It may at

Only an eternal Gen- j^^^^ ^^ g^jj ^^^^ jf -^ ^^^^^ j^^^ intended tO eration meets the texts. , , ' i i • . • ^ •

teach that the permanent personal distmction

was that of filiation, the Scriptures have been singularly unfor- tunate. But I shall proceed to cite other authorities, which are more decisive of the point. In doing this I shall be also adding to the overthrow of the Arian and Socinian views by an a fortiori argument. For if a scheme of temporal filiation, coupled with the admission of a true and eternal, though unnamed, personal distinction, will not "satisfy the meaning of the texts ; still less will the scheme of a temporal filiation which denies the eternity and divinity of the 2d person.

(a) In a number of passages it is said, that God " sent," "gave," &c., His Son : e. g., Rom. viii : 3. " God Because Chnst is ggi-j^jij^g- j^jg q^^^ Sq^, in the likeness of sin- Son, when sent. ^,^^,,^ r^ t ••• ^ t ••• o ful flesh, &c. So, Jno. m : 16; Jno. in : 8;

iv : 9 ; Gal. iv : 4 ; Acts iii : 26. Now, who would dream that when God says, " He sends the Son in the flesh," He was not His Son before, but was made such by the sending? See also I Tim. iii: 16; I Jno. iii: 8.

The three Old Testament passages, Ps. ii : 7 ; Prov. viii : 7;

22, 23; Micah v: 2, are advanced with great Son, when pre-exist- g^btlety and force by Turrettin. He favours,

for the first, the interpretation of the " to- day" ("have I begotten thee,") as tjie punctiim stans, or eter- nal now, of the divine decree. The great objection is, that the idiom and usage of the Psalms do not sustain it. It is better, with Calvin and Hengstenberg, to understand the verb, " have begotten," according to a frequent Hebrew usage, as equivalent to the manifestation, or declaration, of His generation. This took place when Christ was revealed to His Church. The pass- age then does not prove, but neither does it disprove, the

208 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

eternity of His generation. In this text, as well as Prov. viii : 22, 23, Turrettin argues the identity of the subject with Jesus Christ, with great force. In Micah v: 2, the application to Jesus Christ is indisputable, being fixed by Matt, ii : 6. The relevancy of the text to His eternal generation depends on two

points — whether the phrase "going forth," ri5^!»iO means gen- eration or production, or only manifestation in action ; and whether the phrase " from of old, from days of forever" means eternity, or only antiquity. As to the former question, we are shut up to the first meaning of generation, by the usage. (Gesenius giving only " origin, descent,") and by the considera- tion that Christ's manifestation in action has not been eternal. As to the second question, the sense of proper eternity is cer- tainly the most natural. The only plausible rendering besides the one given by Turrettin is the one hinted by Gesenius: ("whose descent is from antiquity;" referring to the antiquity of Christ's human lineage.) And manifestly this gives to the noun the perverted sense of channels of descent instead of act of production, its proper meaning.

(c) We find another argument for the eternal generation

of the Son, in a number of passages, as the FadS."" '' '^'™^"^ Baptismal formula; the 'Apostolic benedic- tion ; Matt, xi : 27 ; Luke x : 22 ; Jno. v : 22 ; x: 33-37; Rom. viii : 32 ; &c., &c. In all these cases the word Son is used in immediate connection with the word Father, so that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the one is reciprocal to the other. The Son is evidently Son in a sense answering to that in which the Father is Father. But do these passages permit us to believe that the first Person here receives that term, only because He has produced a human nature in which to clothe the Son, when the two first passages give an enumeration of the three divine Persons as making up the Godhead, presented in its most distinctive divine attitude, receiving the highest acts of worship, and all the others bring to view acts in which the Father and Son mutually share essentially divine acts or honours? It is plain that the pater- nity here means something characteristic and permanent ; so, then, does the filiation.

(d) In Rom. i: 3, 4; we read that the "Son of God was

made of the seed of David according to the ' flesh, declared with power ooicdivzo:: to be

the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness," &c. Here we not only find the evidence of head (a) that the Son was made flesh, and so was Son before; but the evident anti- thesis between the flesh and the Spirit of holiness. His divine nature, compels us to read that His resurrection forcibly mani- fested Him to be God's Son as to His divine nature, even as He was David's as to His human. But if His fihation to God

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. i: 3
  2. Matt iii: 17
  3. Micah v: 2
  4. Rom. i: 3

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2O9

respects His divine nature, as contrasted with His human, the question is settled.

(e) I may group together two very similar passages. Col. . i: 14-17; and Heb. i: 3-6. The Sonship

creating. ^^ °" ^ ^^ i^ surely not merely the incarnation, when it is stated to be a begetting before every crea- ture ! The Son as Son, and not as incarnate only, is represented in both passages as performing divine functions, as representing the Father's nature and glory; whence we must infer that His Sonship is something belonging to His divinity, not His human- ity merely. And in Heb. v: 5, 6, the Apostle seems to aim explicitly to separate His Sonship from that of all others as divine and peculiar. Consider thus: Heb. i: 2; iii: 5, 6; vii : 3, and vii : 28. In a word, the generation of the Son, and procession of the Spirit, however mysterious, are unavoidable corollaries from two facts. The essence of the Godhead is one ; the persons are three. If these are both true, there must be some way, in which the Godhead multiplies its personal modes of subsistence, without multiplying or dividing its sub- stance. The Scriptures call one of these modes a ykvzafz and the other an BXTzopeom::. We thus learn two truths. The 2d and 3d substances are eternally propagated in dissimilar modes. The inscrutable mode of the 2d substance bears some mysteri- ous analogy to the generation of human sons.

It has been supposed that the following texts were repug- ^, . ^ nant to our view, by showing that the filiation

kj DiGc lions

had a temporal origin in Christ's incarnation and exaltation as a mediatorial Person: Matt: xvi : 16; Luke i: 35 ; Jno. i: 49; seem, it is said, to imply that His Sonship is nothing else than His Messiahship, and in Jno. x: 35, 36; it is said, He states Himself to be Son because sanctified and sent into the world by the Father. The answer is, that this argument confounds the traits which define Him as Son with those which constitute Him the Son. To say that the Messiah, the Sent, is the one who is Son, is far short of saying that these offices make Him the Son. It is said that Acts xiii : 33, and Col. i: 18 refer the Sonship to his resurrection, the former of these passages especially, citing Ps. ii : 7 in support of that view. I re- ply, that it is only a mistranslation which seems to make Acts xiii : 33 relate to Christ's resurrection at all. We should read, in that God hath set up (as Messiah) Jesus : as it is written in the 2nd Ps.: "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee." Here we see a striking confirmation of the sense given above to this Ps. viz : that Christ's Sonship was declaratively manifested by His installment as Messiah. In the Col. i : 18; Christ is said to be the TzocoroToxo' ix vcov i/sxpcov. But evidently the concluding words should explain the meaning : " That in all things He might have the pre-eminence," in the resurrection of New Testament saints, as well as in an eternal generation. 14*

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. i: 3-6
  2. Heb. v: 5
  3. Heb. i: 2

2IO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Once more, it is claimed that Luke 1:35; plainly defines the incarnation as the ground of the Sonship. The simplest reply is, that the divine nature (compare Rom. i : 4 ;) was never born of the virgin, but only the humanity. This nature, thus united in the mediatorial Person, was called God's Son, because of its miraculous generation, so that the whole media- torial person, in both natures, might be Son of God ; that which is eternal, eternally Son, and that which is temporal, temporally Son. If the adverse rendering is to hold, then, (a) the Holy Ghost, and not the First Person, is the Father of Christ, and (b) His Sonship would be only equal to Adam's.

In fine, there is a general argument for the eternal genera- tion of the Son, in the simple fact the Scrip-

Mr^T^'^^L ^.u "^ '^ 1: °^ ture has chosen this most simple and import- Words: Father — Son. . r i* i •

ant pair of words to express a relation

between the first and second Persons. There must have been a reason for the choice, there must be something corresponding to the well-known meaning of this pair of words, else eternal truth would not have employed them. That meaning must of course be compatible with God's immateriality and eternity, and must be stripped of all the elements arising from man's corporeal and finite nature and temporal existence. It is not corporeal generation, nor generation in time ; but after strip- ping it of all this, do we not inevitably get this, as the residuum of meaning, that the personal subsistence of the Son is deriva- tive, though eternal, and constitutes His nature the same with the Father's?

4. It is a remarkable fact, that while so many terms and

traits belonging to generation are given to

Personal Relation of ^| ^^ Person, not one of them is ever given

Holy Ghost. . „ . ' , • , tt • • i i << , >.

in Scripture to the 3d. He is indeed "sent

as the Son is "sent; " but this is in both cases, not the modal, but merely the official term. The nature of the 3d personality is always represented by the word " breath," and his production is only callfed a "proceeding out" The inference seems fair, that the mode of personal subsistence, and the personal relation is therefore different from that of the Son. But as both are inscrutable, we cannot tell in what they differ. See Turrettin, Locus 3, Qu. 31, § 3.

The evidence for the . eternity of this personal relation I tEtr P between the Spirit and the other two Per-

sons, is much more scanty than that for the eternity of the Son's filiation. In only one place, Jno. xv : 26, is the Holy Ghost said to proceed from the Father. If that place stood alone, it could never be determined from it whether it was intended by our Saviour to define the mode of the eter- nal subsistence of the 3d person, or only to denote his official function in time. But besides the analogy of the Son's relation, we may infer with reasonable certainty that it intends an

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2 I [

eternal relation. As his generation is not a mere commission- ing in time, so the Spirit's procession is not a mere sending or an office in time. Otherwise the symmetry of the doctrine of the Trinity would be fatally" broken ; while the Scriptures hold out three co-ordinate Persons, eternally subsisting and related as Persons, inter se, we should be guilty of representing the 3d as bearing no permanent relation to the others.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Luke 1:35

SYLLABUS

1. How do Theologians classify the acts of God ? TKrrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. i. Dick, Lect. 34.

2. What is God's Decree?- Wherein different from Fate? What is the dis- tinction between permissive and efficacious ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 3. Turrettin, zibi supra, and Loc. vi, Qu. 2. Dick, ///'/ supra. Calv. Inst., bk. iii, ch. 21.

3. Establish the following properties of the decree, (a) Unity, (b) Eternity, ic) Universality, embracing especially the future acts of free agents, (d) Efficiency, (e) Absoluteness from conditions, (f) Freedom, and (g) Wisdom.

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 2, 3 and 4. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 7, g 1-3. Dick, ubi supra. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 26, ^ i. Knapp, | 32. Witsius on Gov., bk, iii, ch. 4. Dr. S. Hopkins' System, Vol. i, p. 130-153.

4. How may the objections be answered; (a) That the Decree destroys free agency and responsibility ; (b) Supersedes the use of means ; (c) Makes God the author of Sin.

Turrettin, as above. Dick, Lects. 34 and 36.

/^UR Study now leads us from the consideration of God's na- ^^ ture to His acts. Theologians have usually classified them under three sorts. The ist are God's imma- fied ^°^'^ ^*^'^ '^'^^^'" nent eternal acts, which are wholly subjec- tive. These are the generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost. 2d, are God's immanent and eternal acts having reference to objects out of Himself This class includes His decree ; an unchangeable and eternal act of God never passing over so as to cease to be His act, yet being relative to His creatures. 3d, are God's transient acts towards the universe external to Himself, including all His works of creation and providence done in tin>e.

" The decrees of God are His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own

2. Decree proved by g-iorv, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes Ood s mtelhgence. *=> •' ' ,,

to pass.

Nature and Revelation concur to teach us that God is a

Being of infinite intelligence, and of will. The eternal object

of His cognition, as we saw, when investigating His omniscience,

is nothing less than the whole of the possible ; for the wisdom

and selection displayed in the creation of the actual, show that

212 SYLLABUS A\D NOTES

there was more before the Divine Mind, than what was effectu- ated. But when we inquire for the ground of the difference between God's natural and His voluntary knowledge, we find no other than His volition. That is, the only way in which any object can by any possibility have passed from God's vision of the possible into His foreknowledge of the actual, is by His purposing to effectuate it Himself, or intentionally and pur- posely to permit its effectuation by some other agent whom He expressly purposed to bring into existence. This is clear from this fact. An effect conceived in posse only rises into actu- ality by virtue of an efficient cause or causes. When God was looking forward from the point of view of His original infinite prescience, there was but one cause, Himself. If any other cause or agent is ever to arise, it must be by God's agency. If effects are embraced in God's infinite prescience, which these other agents are to produce, still, in willing these other agents into existence, with infinite prescience, God did virtually will into existence, or purpose, all the effects of which they were to be efficients. That this prescience is all-embracing, the Scrip- tures assert in too many places. (Acts XV : i8; Is. 42 : 9; xlvi : 10 ; Ps. cxlvii : 5 ; Jno. xxi : 17. Hence His purpose must extend to all that is, or is to be effectuated.

The same conclusion follows by a more popular reasoning from God's power ; that power extends to all By His Power. beings and events, and is the source of all

existence. Now it is impossible for us to conceive how an intelligent Being can set about producing anything, save as He has the conception of the thing to be produced in His mind, and the intention to produce it in His will. Least of all can we attribute an unintelligent and aimless working to God. But if He is concerned in the production of all things, and had an in- telligent purpose with reference to all which He produced, there is His decree ; and His perfections, as we shall see, forbid our imputing any beginning to it. So, the sovereignty of God, which regulates all the universe, the doctrine of His providence, so fully asserted in Scripture, and His concurring perfections of knowledge and wisdom, show that He must have a purpose as to all things. See Eph: i : 1 1 ; Ps. xxxiii : 11. Other passages, extending this purpose specifically to various departments of events, and especially to those concerning which the decree is most contested, will be cited in other connections. These also are appropriate here.

The question whether God's decrees abide in Him essen- tially or accidentally, is but the same with Is the Decree in God ^^^ which we saw raised concerning the sim- plicity of the divine essence. The scholastic divines, in order to defend their metaphysical notion of this, said that God knows, feels, wills, &c., by His essence, or that God's knowledge is but His essence knowing, &c. As we then

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2I3

concluded concerning His knowledge, so I now say concerning His purpose. If it is meant that God's purpose is but God pur- posing, and as abstracted from Him, is but an abstraction, and not an existent thing, I fully concur. But in the same sense, the purpose of a human soul is but that soul purposing. The differ- ence of the two cases is, that God's purpose is immanent and immutable, the man's evanescent and mutable. To make the decree of God's essence in any other sense, is to give it essence ; to make it a mode of the divine subsistence. And this trenches hard by the awful verge of pantheism. For if the decree is but a mode of the divine subsistence, then its effectuation in the creature's existence must still have the same essence, and all creatures are but modes of God, and their acts of God's acts. The decrees are not accidents with God, in the sense that, being the result of God's immutable perfections, they cannot change nor fail, but are as permanent as God's essence.

The doctrine of God's decree has been often impugned as .^ no better than the Stoic's Fate. The modern,

^ ^' ^ ■ and indeed, the ancient interpreters of their

doctrine, differ as to their meaning. Some, as Seneca, seem to represent fate as no other than the intelligent, eternal purpose of the Almighty. But others describe it as a physical neces- sity, self-existent and immanent in the links of causation them- selves, by which effect is evolved out of cause according to a law eternally and necessarily existent in the Universe and all its parts. To this necessity Gods are as much subject as men. This definition is more probably the true one, because it agrees with a pantheistic system, and such Stoicism was. Now it is obvious, that this fate necessitates God as much as man, and that not by the influence of His own intelligence and perfections, but by an influence physical and despotic. Whereas our view of God's purpose makes it His most free, sovereign, wise and holy act of choice. This fate is a blind necessity ; God's decree is intelligent, just, wise and benevolent. Fate was a necessity, destroying man's spontaneity. God's decree, in purposing to make and keep man a free agent, first produced and then pro- tects the exercise of it.

God's decree " foreordains whatsoever comes to pass ;" there

was no event in the womb of the future, the God's decree effec- futurition of wliich was not made certain to tive or permissive. ^ ■, , . -r-> ii- ,i.,i- ^ • ^

God by it. But we believe that this certainty

is effectuated in different ways, according to the different natures of God's creatures. One class of effects God produces by His own immediate agency, (as creations, regenerations, inspirations,) and by physical causes, which are continually and immediately energized by His power. This latter subdivision is covered by what we call the laws of material nature. As to these, God's purpose is called effective, because He Himself effects the results, without the agency of other intelligent agents. The

214 SYIXABUS AND NOTES

other class of effects is, the spontaneous acts of rational free agents other than God. ' The being and powers of these are derived from and dependent on God. But yet He has been pleased to bestow on them a rational spontaneity of choice, which makes them as truly agents, sources of self-determined agency, in their little, dependent sphere of action, as though there were no sovereign over them. In my theory of the will, I admitted and claimed as a great truth of our consciousness, that man's action is spontaneous, that the soul is self-deter- mined (though not the faculty of willing) in all its free acts, that the fountain of the volition is in the soul itself; and that the external object of the action is but the occasional cause of voli- tion. Yet these spontaneous acts God has some way of direct- ing, (only partially known to us) and these are the objects of His permissive decree. By calling it permissive, we do not mean that their futurition is not certain to God ; or that He has not made it certain ; we mean that they are such acts as He effi- ciently brings about by simply leaving the spontaneity of other free agents, as upheld by His providence, to work of itself, under incitements, occasions, bounds and limitations, which His wisdom and power throw around. To this class may be attributed all the acts of rational free agents, except such as are evoked by God's own grace, and especially, all their sinful acts.

The properties of God's decree are, ist. Unity. It is one

act of the divine mind ; and not many. This

3. Properties — The yjg^y jg ^^ least Suggested by Scripture, which

ciecrcG 3- unit. 00 y jt '

speaks of it usually as a '(lodeacz, a " pur- pose," a " counsel." It follows from the nature of God. As His natural knowledge is all immediate and cotemporaneous, not successive, like ours, and His comprehension of it all infinitely complete always, His purpose founded thereon, must be a single, all comprehensive and simultaneous act. Besides,, the whole decree is eternal and immutable. All therefore must co-exist together always in God's miud. Last, God's plan is shown, in its effectuation, to be one ; cause is linked with effect, and what was effect becomes cause ; and influences of events on events interlace with each other, and descend in widening streams to subsequent events ; so that the whole complex result is interconnected through every part. As astronomers suppose that the removal of one planet from our system \Vould modify more or less the balance and orbits of all the rest, so the failure of one event in this plan would derange the whole, directly or indirectly. God's plan is, never to effectuate a result apart from, but always by, its own cause. As the plan is thus a unit in its effectuation, so it must have been in its conception. Most of the errors, which have arisen in the doctrine, have come from the mistake of imputing to God that apprehension of His purpose in successive parts, to which the limitations of our minds confine us, in conceiving of it.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 215

2. The decree is eternal. One may object : that God must exist before His decree, the subject before ob[ecdot'.'''''''™^^~ its act. I reply, He exists before it only in" the order of production, not in time. For intellection is His essential state, and His comprehension of His purpose may be as eternal as Himself. The sun's rays are from the sun, but measuring by duration, there were rays as early as there was a sun. It has been objected that some parts of the decree are consequent on other parts, and cannot therefore be equally early. I reply, the real sequence is only in the events as effectuated, not in the decree of them. The latter is a co- existent unit with God, and there is no sequence of parts in it, except in our feeble minds. It is said the comprehension of the possible must have gone before in the divine mind, in order that the determination to effectuate that part which commended itself to the divine wisdom, might follow. I reply : God does not need to learn things deductively, or to view them piecemeal and successively ; but His infinite mind sees all by immediate intu- ition and together ; and in seeing, concludes. The most plau- sible objection is, that many of God's purposes must have been formed in time, because suspended on the acts of other free agents to be done in time ; e. g., Deut. xxviii : 2, 15 ; Jer. xviii : 10. The answer is, that all these acts, though contingent to man, were certainly foreknown to God.

Having thus cleared away objections, we might argue very Its Eternity Argued simply : If God had an intention to act, before from God's perfections each act, when was that intention born ? No and Scnpture. answer will be found tenable till we run back

to eternity. For, God's knowledge was always perfect, so that He finds out nothing new, to become the occasion of a new plan. His wisdom was always perfect, to give Him the same guidance in selecting means and ends. His power was always infinite, to prevent any failure, or successful resistance, which would cause Him to resort to new expedients. His character is immutable ; so that He will not causelessly change His own mind. There is therefore nothing to account for any addition to His original plan. But we may reason more comprehensively. It is, as we saw, only God's purpose, which causes a part of the possible to become the actual. As the whole of God's scientia siniplicis intelligentios was present to Him from eternity, a reason is utterly wanting in Him, why any part of the decree should be formed later than any other part.

And to this agree the Scriptures : Is. xlvi : lO ; Matt, xxv : 34 ; I Cor. ii : 7 ; Eph. i : 4 ; 2 Thess. ii : 13; 2 Tim. i : 9 ; i Pet. i : 20. On these, two remarks should be made. Although they do not expressly assert the eternity of all God's decrees, several of them do assert the eternity of the very ones most impugned, His decrees concerning events dependent on free agent. In the language of Scripture, to say a thing was done

2l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

"" before the formation of the world," is to say it is from eternity, because with the creation of the universe began successive dura- tion. All before this is the measureless eternity. In conclusion, I add the express assertion of Acts xv : i8.

3. The decree is universal, embracing absolutely all creatures,

_, , . , and all their actions. No nominal Christians

The decree universal. i.i.i.i- . ..1 ^ c r

contest this, except as to the acts of free

agents, which the Arminians, but especially the Socinians, exempted from God's sovereign decree, and the latter heretics from His foreknowledge. We have seen that God's foreknowl- edge is founded on His foreordination. If then we prove that God has a perfect foreknowledge of all future events, we shall have virtually proved that He has foreordained them. The Socinians are more consistent than the Arminians here, in that they deny both to God. They define God's omniscience as His knowledge of all the cognizable. All the future acts of free- agents, say they, cannot be foreknown, because a multitude of them are purely contingent ; the volitions springing from a will in equilibrio. It is therefore no derogation to God's under- standing, that He does not foreknow all of them, any more than it would be to the goodness of an eye, that it does not see what as yet does not exist. When free agents perform acts unfore- seen to God, His wisdom, say they, provides Him with a multi- tude of resources, by which He overrules the result, and still makes them concur substantially (not absolutely) with His wise and good plans.

Now, in opposition to all this, we have shown that the future

, , , , ,. . volitions of free agents are none of them

Includes the volitions ,1 ■, ° , , ,

of free agents. among the unknowable ; because none con-

tingent to God. We argue farther that God must have foreordained, and so foreknown all events, including these volitions: (a ) Because, else, His providence would not be sovereign, and His independence and omnipotence would be impugned. ' We have seen that the course of events is a chain, in which every link has a direct or remote connection with every other. Into a multitude of physical events, the volitions of free agents enter as part causes ; and if God has not a control over all these, He could not have over the dependent results. His government would be a capricious patchwork of new expedi- ents. Beeause He could not control everything. He would not be absolutely sure of controlling anything, for all are inter- dependent, (b.) God's knowledge would receive continual accretions, and hence His feelings and plans would change with them ; His immutability would be gone, (c.) Prophecy con- cerning the acts of free agents would have been impossible. For unless all the collateral links of causation are under God's control, it may be that He will be unable to control a single result. But a multitude of the acts of the proudest, most arro- gant and rebellious men were exactly and confidently predicted,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 21/

of your Nebuchadnezzars, Pharaohs, Cyrus, &c., &c. To this last agree. the Scriptures: Eph. i: lO, ii; Rom. xi : 33; Heb. iv : 13; Rom. ix: 15, 18; Acts xv : 18; xvii : 26; Job xiv : 5; Is. xlvi : 10. Men's voHtions, especially including the evil. Eph. ii : 10; Acts ii : 23; iv : 27,28; Ps. Ixxvi : 10; Prov. xvi : 4,33; Dan. iv: 34, 35; Gen. xlv : 5; Is. x: 5, 15; Josh, xi : 20; Prov. XX : 24; Is. xlv: 7; Amos iii : 6; Ps. cvii : 17; i Sam. ii : 2$; 2 Sam. xvi : 10; i Kgs. xii : 15,24; 2Kgs. xxvi: 2, 3, 20. Add all those texts where the universality of God's providential control is asserted : for Providence is but the exe- cution of the decree.

4. Nearly akin to this is the remark that the decree is efficient. By this I mean that God's purpose The decree efficient. ^^ -^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ absolutely sure to be effectu- ated. Nearly all the arguments adduced under the last head apply here : God's sovereignty, God's wisdom. His independ- ence, and the dependence of all other things on Him, the " immutability of His counsel," and of His knowledge and other attributes, the certainty of His predictions, all demand that " His counsel shall stand, and He shall do all His pleasure." See Matt, xxvi : 54 ; Luke xxii : 22 ; Acts iv : 28 ; Prov. xvi : 33 ; Matt, x : 29, 30. Here we see that things most minute, most contingent in our view of them, and most voluntary, are yet efficaciously produced by God.

The Arminians have too much reverence for God's perfec- tions to limit His knowledge as to the actions Over free agents ^^ f^^^ agents. But they endeavor to evade the inevitable conclusion of the decree, and to save their favorite doctrine of conditional purposes, by limit- ing His concern with the acts, and especially sins, of free agents, to a mere foreknowledge, permission, and intention to make the permitted act a condition of some part of the decree. I urge that they who concede so much, cannot consistently stop there. If the sinful act (to make the least possible con- cession to the Calvinist,) of the free agent has been from eter- nity certainly forseen ^ by God, then its occurrence must be certain. But in this universe, nothing comes without a cause ; there must therefore be some ground for the certainty of its occurrence. And it is upon that ground that God's foreknowl- edge of it rests. Do yn^n ask what that ground is ? I reply by asking: How does God's knowledge of the possible pass into His knowledge of the actual? Only by His determining to secure the occurrence of all the latter. Conceive of God as just now about to create a free agent, according to His plan, and launch him out on his path of freedom. If God fore- knows all that the free agent will choose to do, if created ; does He not purpose the doing of all this, when He creates him? To deny this is a contradiction. We may not be able to see fully how God certainly procures the doing of such acts

2l8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

by free agents, still leaving them to act purely from their own spontaneity ; but we cannot deny that He does, without over- throwing His sovereignty and foreknowledge. Such events may be wholly contingent to man; but to God none of them can be contingent ; else all the parts of His decree, connected as effects with them as causes, would be in the same degree contin- gent. For instance : if Christ be not " taken, and by wicked hands crucified and slain," then, unless God is to proceed by rupturing the natural ties of cause and effect, all the natural and historical consequences of Christ's sacrifice must also fail, down to the end of time and through eternity. If God is to be able to prevent all that failure, we must ascribe to Him power to make sure by His determinate counsel and foreknowl- edge that the wicked hands shall not fail to take and slay the victim. The same argument may be extended to every sinful act, from which the adorable wisdom of God has evolved good consequences. When we remind ourselves how moral causes interlace and spread as time flows on, we see that, unless the decree extends to sinful acts, making them also certain, God will be robbed, by our day, of nearly all His providential power over free agents, and His foreknowledge of their doings. As this branch of the decree is most impugned (by Arminians and Cumberland Presbyterians) let it be fortified by these additional Scriptures, i. They assert that God's purpose is concerned in such sins as those of Eli's sons, i Sam. ii : 25, of Shimei, 2 Sam. xvi : 10, ii, of Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xvii : 14, of the Chaldeans, 2 Kings, xxvi : 2, 3, 20, of Jeroboam, i Kings, xii : 15, 24, of Amaziah, 2 Chron. xxv: 20, of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. xxv: 9 : Ii : 20, of Pilate and Herod, Acts iii: 17, 18. 2d. The Scriptures say that God, in some way, moves men to actions, such as Hadad, the Edomite, and Rezon, the son of Eliada, against Solomon, i Kings xi : 14, 23. David to num- ber Israel, 2 Sam. xxiv : i. Pul and Tiglath-pileser, i. Chron. v: 26. The Medes against them, Isaiah xiii : 17. The Egyptians, Ps. cv : 25. The secular Popish princes. Rev. xvii: 17. 3d. The Bible represents God as being concerned, by His purpose and providence, in men's self-deceptions. Job xii: 16; Ezek. xiv : 9 ; 2 Thess. ii : 11, 12. 4th. God is described as " hardening " sinners' hearts, in order to effectuate some righteous purpose. Isaiah vi : 9, 10; xxix : lo; Rom. xi : 7, 8 ; Exod. iv: 21, ct passim. Rom. 9: 18. How can all those declarations be explained away ? We do not, of course, advance them as .shewing God to be the author of sin, but they can mean no less than that His purpose determines, and His providence sup- erintends the occurrence of sins, for His own holy ends.

We are now prepared to approach the proposition, that

^, , God's act in forming His decree is uncon-

5. 1 he decree not i-.- 1 ^i • i. u 1 u ur-

conditional. ditioiied on anythmg to be done by His

creatures. In another sense, a multitude of

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. ix: 15
  2. Dan. iv: 34
  3. Jer. xxv: 9
  4. Acts iii: 17
  5. Rev. xvii: 17
  6. Job xii: 16
  7. Exod. iv: 21
  8. Rom. 9: 18

OF LECTURES IX THEOLOGY. 219-

the things decreed are conditional ; God's whole plan is a wise unit, linking means with ends, and causes with effects. In regard to each of these effects, the occurrence of it is condi- tional on the presence of its cause, and is made so dependent by God's decree itself. But while the events decreed are con- ditional, God's act in forming the decree is not conditional, on anything which is to occur in time ; because in the case of each dependent event. His decree as much determined the occur- rence of the cause, as of its effect. And this is true equally of those events in His plan dependent on the free acts of. free agents. No better illustration can be given, of the mode in which God decrees dependent or conditioned events, absolutely, by equally decreeing the conditions through which they are to be brought about, than Acts xxvii : 22 with 31. The Armin- ian admits that all such intermediate acts of men were eternally foreseen of God, and thus embraced in His plan as conditions : but not foreordained. We reply : if they were certainly fore- seen, their occurrence was certain; if this was certain, then there must have been something to determine that certainty ; and that something was either God's wise foreordination, or a blind physical fate. Let the Arminian choose.

Here enters the theory of scientia media in God ; and here . we detect one of the objects for which it is

invented. The student is referred to the demonstration (on p. 157-9,) o^ i^^ falsehood. Were the free acts of moral accents conting-ent to God, the conclusion of the Socinian would be true, that they are not certainly cognizable, even to an infinite mind. Arminians, who recoil from this irreverent position, refer us to the infinitude of God's mind to account for His having certain prescience of all these contingent acts, inconceivable as it is to us. But I reply : it is worse than inconceivable, absolutely contradictory. . What does the Armin- ian propose as the medium, or middle premise, of this inferen- tial knowledge in God ? His insight into the dispositions of all creatures enables Him, they suppose, to infer how they will act in the presence of the conditions which His omniscience fore- sees, will surround them at any given time. But it is obvious, this supposes such an efficient and causative connection between disposition and volition, as the Calvinist asserts, and the Armin- ian denies. So that, if volitions are contingent, the middle term is annihilated. We ask then, does mental perfection prompt a rational being to draw a certain inference after the sole and essential premise thereof is gone ? Does infinitude help any mind to this baseless logic ? Is this a compliment, or an insult to the divine intelligence ? To every plain mind it is clear, that whether an intellect be greater or smaller, it would be its imperfection and not its glor}'. to infer without a ground of inference.

Hence, it follows, that the eternity of the decree, already

■220 SYLLABUS AND KOTES

proved, offers us a demonstration against a conditional decree in God. For, scieiitia media of a contingent act of the creature being impossible, whenever an event decreed was conditioned on such contingent, creature act, as second cause, it might have been, that God would be obliged to wait until the creature acted, before He could form a positive purpose as to the event. Therefore we must hold, this creature act never was contingent to God, since His purpose about it was eternal ; and the effect was foreordained in foreordaining the condition of its production.

The immutability of God's decree argues the same, and in the same way. If the condition on which His results hung were truly contingent, then it might turn out in one or another of several different ways. Hence it would always be possible that God might have to change His plans.

It is equally plain that His sovereignty would no longer be entire : but God would be dependent on His creatures for abil- ity to effectuate many of His plans ; and some might fail in spite of all He could do. I have already indicated that God's foreknowledge of the conditions, and of all dependent on them, could not possibly be certain. For if a thing is not certain to occur, a certain expectation that it will occur, is an erroneous one. Hence, the Arminian should be driven by consistency to the conclusion of the Socinian. limiting God's knowledge.

But Arminians are exceedingly fond of saying, that the dream of absolute decrees is a metaphysical invention not sus- tained by Scripture, and only demanded by consistency with other unhallowed, human speculation. Hence I shall take pains, as on other points, to show that it is expressly the doc- trine of Scripture. Here may be cited all the proofs by which I showed that the decree is universal and efficacious. For the very conception of the matter which I have inculcated is, that events are conditioned on events, but that the decree is not ; because it embraces the conditions as efficaciously as the results. See also Is. xlvi : lo, 1 1 : Rom. ix : 1 1 ; Matt, xi : 25, 26; Eph. i: 5 ahd II ; Is. xl:i3; Rom. ix : 15-18 ; Acts ii : 2^ ; iii: 18 ; Gen. 1: 20.

His decree «includes means and conditions. 2 Thess. ii : 13 ; I Pet. i : 2 ; Phil, ii : 13 ; Eph. ii : 8 ; 2 Tim. ii : 25.

But against this view objections are urged with great T~, ,,. , ^ , clamour and confidence. They may be

Does this make God j • , ^ ._i ^ i i . i

theauthor of sin? Summed up mto two : that absolute decrees

make God the author of sin ; and that the Scriptures contradict our view by displaying many conditional threats and promises of God, e. g., Ezek, xviii : 21 ; Ps. Ixxxi : ^3- H; &c., &c., and some cases in which decrees were act- ually revoked and changed in consequence of men's conduct, as I Sam. xiii 113; Luke vii : 30.

That God is not, and cannot be the author of sin, is plain

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. i: 5
  2. Gen. 1: 20

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 22 T

from express Scripture, Jas. i : 13, 7 ; i J no. i : 5 ; Eccl. vii : 29; Ps. xcii : 15 ; from God's law, which prohibit;- all sin ; from the holiness of His nature, which is incapable of it; and from the nature of sin itself, which must be man's ov/n free activity, or else is not responsible and guilty. But I remark, 1st, that so far as the great mystery of God's permission of sin enters into this objection, our minds are incapable of a complete explan- tion. But this incapacity is precisely the same, whatever scheme we adopt for accounting for it, unless we deny to God complete foreknowledge and power. 2. The simple fact that God clearly foresaw every sin the creature would commit, and yet created him, is attended with all the difficulty which attaches to our view. But that foresight the Arminian admits. By determining to create the creature, foreknowing that he would sin, God obviously determined the occurrence of the sin, through the creature's free agency ; for at least He could have refrained from creating him. But this is just as strong as our view of the case involves. The Arminian pleads : Yea, but God determined to create a creature who. He foresaw, would sin, not for the sake of sin, but for the sake of the good and holy ends connected therewith. I reply, 3d. Well, the very same plea avails for us. We can say just as consistently : God purposed to produce these free agents, to sustain their free agency untrammeled, to surround them with outward cir- cumstances of a given kind, to permit that free agency, moved by those circumstances as occcasional causes, to exert itself in a multitude of acts, some sinful, not for the sake of the sin, but for the sake of some good and holy results which His^ infinite wisdom has seen best to connect therewith. Last, in the sinful act, the agency and choice is the sinner's alone ; because the inscrutable modes God has for effectuating the certain occurrence of His volitions never cramp or control the creature's spontaneity : as consciousness testifies.

The second class of objections Arminians also advance Objected that God's with great Confidence ; saying that unless we~ threats and promises are willing to charge God with insincerity,. are conditional. f^jg conditional promise or threat must be

received by us as an exact disclosure of His real purpose. Let us test this in any case, such as our adversaries usually select: e. g.. Is. i: 19; "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." Did not God know, at the time He uttered these words, that they would not be willing and obedi- ent? See ch. vi : 10-12. Was it not His fixed intention, at that very moment to deprive them of the good of the land, in consequence of their clearly foreseen disobedience? Here then is the very same ground for the pretended charge of insin- cerity in God. The truth is, that God's preceptive threats and promises are not a disclosure of His secret purpose. But the distinction between His secret and revealed will is one which is

222 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

inevitably made by every thinking mind, and is absolutely una- voidable, unless man's mind can become as capacious as God's. And see Deut. xxix : 29. Nor does this impugn God's sincerity. The sophism of the Arminian is just that, in this case, already pointed out; confounding conditionality of events decreed, with conditionality of God's decree. God purposed, in this case, that the event, Israel's punishment, should be conditioned on the other event, their disobedience. So that his conditional promise was perfectly truthful. But He also purposed, secretly, to withhold that undeserved constraining grace, which might have prevented Israel's disobedience, so that the condition, and the thing conditioned on it should both come to pass. Again, the idea that God has revocable decrees, is as utterly incom- patible with the foreknowledge of man's free acts, as with their foreordination. When it is said that the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God concerning themselves, the word counsel means but precept, cf Ps. cvii: 1 1 ; Prov. i : 25, 30 ; Rev. iii : 18.

6. The freedom of God's decree follows from what has

been already argued. If it was eternal, then, The decree free. ^^j^^^ j^ ^^^ formed, there was no Being out-

side of Himself to constrain or be the motive of it. If abso- lute, then God was induced to it by no act of other agents, but only by His own perfections. And this leads us to remark, that when we say the decree is free, we do not mean God acts in forming it, in disregard of His own perfections, but under the guidance of His own perfections alone. Eph. i: 5. Rom. xi : 34.

7. The wisdom of God's decree is manifest from the wis- dom of that part of His plan which has been unfolded. Although much there is inscrutable to us, we see enough to convince us that all is wise. Rom. xi : 33, 34.

Of the general objections against the decree of God, to

which I called your attention, two remain to

4. Does the decree su- ^ noticed. One is, that if it were true, it

would supersede the use of all means. " If

what is to be will be, why trouble ourselves with the useless and

vain attempt either to procure or prevent it?"

This popular objection is exceedingly shallow. The answer is, that the use of the means, where free agents are concerned, is just as much included in the decree, as the result. God's purpose to institute and sustain the laws of causation in nature, is the very thing which gives efficacy to means, instead of taking it away. Further, both Scripture aud consciousness tell us, that in using man's acts as means, God's infinite skill does it always without marring his freedom in the least.

But it is objected, second, that if there were an absolute

decree, man could not be free ; and so, could

Is It inconsistent with .1 • -i 1 -n *. „-^ „^ ^.^A

free agency ? "^t be responsible. But consciousness and

God's word assure us we are free. Treph-,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 223

the facts cannot be incompatible because Scripture most un- doubtedly asserts both, and both together. See Is. x : 5 to 15 ; Acts ii : 23. Second, feeble man procures free acts from his fellow-man, by availing himself of the power of circumstances as inducements to his known dispositions, and yet he regards the agent as free and responsible, and the agent so regards himself. If man can do this sometimes, why may not an infinite God do it all the time ? Third, If there is anything about absolute decrees to impinge upon man's freedom of choice, it must be in their mode of execution, for God's merely having such a purpose in His secret breast could affect man in no way. But Scripture and consciousness assure us that God executes this purpose as to man's acts, not against, but through and with man's own free will. In producing spiritually good acts. He " worketh in man to will and to do ;" and determines that he"shali be willing in the day of His power." And in bringing about bad acts, He simply leaves the sinner in circum- stances such that he does, of himself only, yet certainly, choose the wrong. Last: This objection implies that man's acts of choice could not be free, unless contingent and uncaused. But we have seen that this theory of the will is false, foolish, and •especially destructive to rational liberty.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ps. cvii: 1
  2. Eph. i: 5

SYLLABUS

1. Wherein are the terms Predestination and Election distinguished from God's Decree? What the usage and meaning of the original words, TLpoypuu/.g, EK?My?/ and cognates?

Turrettin, Loc. iv. Qu. 7. Dick, Lect. 35. Conf. of F., ch. 3.

2. Prove that there is a definite election of individual men to salvation, whose number can neither be increased nor diminished.

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. I2, i6. Conf. of F., ch. 3. Calv. Inst., bk. iii. chs. 21, 22. Witsius, bk. iii, ch. 4. Dick, Lect 35. Hill's Div., bk. iv. ch. 7. Burnet on 39 Articles, Art. xvii. Knapp, § xxxii. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 26, § I, 2. '

3. Has the decree of predestination the qualities predicated of the whole decree? Dick, Lect. 35.

4. Does predestination embrace angels as well as men ; and with the same kind of decree ?

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 8.

5. State the differences between the Sublapsarian and Supralapsarian schemes. Which is correct ?

Dick, Lect. 35. Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 9, 14 and 18, \ 1-5. Burnet, as above.

'IX/'HILE God's decree is His purpose as to all things. His predestination may be defined to be His purpose concern- ing the everlasting destiny of His rational I. Definitions. creatures. His election is His purpose of

224 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

saving eternally some men and angels. Election and repro- bation are both included in predestination. The word -jioonca- /w;, the proper original for predestination, does not occur in this connection in the New Testament ; but the kindred verb and participle are found in the following passages, describing God's foreyrdination of the religious state or acts of persons; Acts iv: 28; Rom. viii : 29, 30; Eph. i: 5; Luke xxii : 22. That this predetermination of men's privileges and destinies by God includes the reprobation of the wicked, as well as the election of the saints, will be established more fully in the next lecture.

The words -ooyvojacz Tzpo-fcvwaxco, as applied to this subject mean more than a simple, inactive cognition of the future state of men by God, a positive or active selection. This is proved by the Hebraistic usage of this class of words : as in i Thess. y : 12; Jno. x: 14; Ps. i : 6; 2 Tim. ii : 19, and by the follow- ing passages, where the latter meaning is indisputable : Rom. xi : 2 ; I Peter i : 20. This will appear extremely reasonable, when we remember that according to the order of God's acts^ His foreknowledge is the effect of His foreordination.

^ Eyj.oyij, ixAsya) are used for various kinds of selection to office, &c., and once by metonymy, for the body of Elect, Rom. xi : 7. When applied to God's call to religious privilege or tO' salvation, it is sometimes inclusive of effectual calling ; as Jno. XV : 16, 19. Some would make this all of election : but that it means a prior and different selection is plain in Matt, xx : 16; 2 Thess. ii: 13. The words Tzooi'kac:, Rom. viii: 28; ix : li; Eph. i : 1 1 , and zdaao), Acts xiii : 48, very clearly express a foreordination of God as to man's religious state.

" By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are predes-

roposi ions. tinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-

ordained to everlasting death."

" These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreor- dained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either n- creased or diminished."

To discuss this thesis, first, as to men. I would argue first :

_ ^ . From the general doctrine of the decree. The

Predestination of men j^^„ • • 1 rr/^ji i.i- j.

proved. From decree. Q^^ree IS universal. If God has anythmg to

do with the sinner's redemption, it must be embraced in that decree. But salvation is everywhere attribu- ted to God, as His work. He calls. He justifies. He regene- rates. He keeps us by faith unto salvation. He sanctifies. All the arguments drawn from God's attributes of wisdom, infinite knowledge, omnipotence, and immutability, in support of His eternal decree, show that His agency in saving the sinners who are saved, is a purposed one, and that this purpose is eternal. Ps. xxxiii: II; Numb, xxiii : 19; Mai. iii : 6; Jas. i: 17; Heb. vi : 17.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 22$

2. The same tiling follows from what Scripture and observation . . teach us of the heart of all men. We are by

rom ongma . mature ungodly, hostile to God, and His law, blind in mind, and certainly determined to worldliness in prefer- ence to godliness, by a native disposition. Hence, no man Cometh to Christ, except the Father who hath sent Him draw him. Unless some power above man made the difference between the believer and unbeliever, it would never vitally appear. But if God makes it, He does it of purpose, and that purpose must be eternal. Hence, no intelligent mind which admits original sin, denies election. The two doctrines stand or fall together.

3. A number of passages of Scripture assert God's election of individuals, in language too clear to be

From Scripture evaded: Matt, xxiv: 24; Jno. xv : 16; Acts

testimonies. ... r>-i-. ••• ^ ' •> . '

xui : 48; Rom. vni ; 29, 30; ix : 11, 16, 22, 24 ; xi : 5,7; Eph. i : 4, 1 1 ; Phil, iv : 3 ; 2 Tim. i : 9 ; 2 Tim. ii : 19. The most of these you will find commented on in your text books, in such a manner as effectually to clear them of the evasions of adversaries. 4th. The saints have their names "written in the book of life," or in "the Lamb's book," or "in Heaven." See Phil, iv : 3 ; Heb. xii : 23 ; Rev. xiii : 8. The book of life mentioned in Scripture is of three kinds : 1st, of natural life. Exodus xxxii : 32 ; when Moses, interceding for Israel prays God, that he may be removed from this life, rather than see the destruction of his brethren : 2d, of federal, visible, church life : as in Ezek. xiii : 9 ; lying prophets " shall not be written in the writing of the house of Israel" : 3d, of eternal life, as in the places first cited. This is the catalogue of the elect.

This class of passages is peculiarly convincing : and especi- Predestination more ^Hy against that phase of error, which makes than selection of a char- God's election nothing else than a determi- acter to be favored. nation that whosoever believes and repents

shall be saved, or in other words, a selection of a certain quality or trait, as the one which procures for its possessors the favour of God. This feeble notion may be farther refuted by remark- ing that all the language employed about predestination is personal, and the pronouns and other adjuncts indicate persons and not classes. It is " whom (masculine) He foreknew, them He also did predestinate." It is "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed," (masc.) Acts xiii : 48. The verb Tzrioopc^M means a definite decision. See e. g.. Acts xxii: 31, or xx: 42. Christ tells His disciples that their names are written in heaven ; not merely the general conditions of their salvation. Luke x : 20; In Phil, iv : 3, Clement and his comrades' names are writ- ten in the book of life. The condition is one ; but in the book are multitudes of names written. Again : a mere determination to bestow favour on the possessors of certain qualities, would be 15*

226 SVLL.\BUS AND NOTES

inert and passive as to the propagation of those quahties ;

whereas God's election propagates the ver}' quahties. See Rom.

ix: II, i8, 22, 23; Eph. i : 4, 5 ; 2 Thess. ii : 13. " He hath

chosen us to salvation through, &c." And once more : were

this determination to bestow favonr on faith and penitence the

whole of election, no one would ever possess those qualities ;

for, as we have seen, all men's hearts are fully set in them to do

evil, and would certainly continue impenitent did not God, out

of His gracious purpose, efficaciously persuade some to come to

Him. These qualities which are thus supposed to be elected,

are themselves the consequences of election.

5. A most convincing proof, of a very practical nature, may

be derived from the observed course of God's Predestination proved • j t-i , • j j ,

by Providence. providence. i hat providence determines

sovereignly the metes and bounds of each man's outward privileges, of his life and opportunities. It determines whether he shall be born and live in a Pagan, or a Christian country, how long he shall enjoy means of grace, and of what efficacy, and when and where he shall die. Now in deci- ding these things sovereignly, the salvation or loss of the man's soul is practically decided, for without time, means, and oppor- tunity, he will not be saved, This is peculiarly strong as to two classes. Pagans and infants. Arminians admit a sovereign elec- tion of nations in the aggregate to religious privileges, or rejec- tion therefrom. But it is indisputable that in fixing their outward condition, the religious fate is virtually fixed forever. What chance has that man practically, for reaching Heaven, whom God caused to be born, to live, to die, in Tahiti in the sixteenth century ? Did not the casting of his lot there virtually fix his lot for eternity? In short, the sovereign election of aggregate nations to privileges necessarily implies, with such a mind as God's, the intelligent and intentional decision of the fate of individuals, practically fixed thereby. Is not God's mind infi- nite ? Are not His perceptions perfect ? Does He, like a feeble mortal, " shoot at the covey, without perceiving the individual birds ?" As to infants, Arminians believe that all such, which die in infancy, are redeemed. When, therefore, God's provi- dence determines that a given human being shall die an infant. He infallibly determines its redemption, and in this case, at least, the decision cannot have been by foresight of faith, repentance, or good works ; because the little soul has none, until after its redemption. This point is especially conclusive against the Arminians because they are so positive that all who die in infancy are saved.

The declarations of the Holy Ghost in Rom. ix and xi are

so decisive in our favour, that they must needs conJiderTd. °^ ^°™" ''^ ^nd the debate, with all who revere the Divine

authority, but for an evasion. The escape usually sought by Arminians (as by Watson, Inst.) is : That the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 22/

Apostle in these places, teaches, not a personal election to salva- tion, but a national or aggregate election to privileges. My first and main objection to this is, that it is utterly irreconcilable with the scope of St. Paul in the passage. What is that scope? Obviously to defend his great proposition of "Justification by free grace through faith," common to Jew and Gentile, from a cavil which, from pharisaic view, was unanswerable, viz : "That if Paul's doctrine were true, then the covenant of election with Abraham was falsified." How does the Apostle answer ? Obvi- ously (and irresistibly) that this covenant was never meant to embrace all his lineage as an aggregate, Rom. ix : 6. " Not as though the word (covenant) of God had taken none effect." " For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel," &c. This decisive fact he then proves, by reminding the Jews that, at the very first descent, one of Abraham's sons was excluded, and the other chosen ; and at the next descent, where not only the father, but the mother was the same, and the children were even twins of one birth, (to make the most absolute possible identity of lineage) one was again sovereignly excluded. So, all down the line, some Hebrews of regular lineage were excluded, and some chosen. Thus, the Apostle's scope requires the disinte- grating of the supposed aggregates ; the very line of his argu- ment compels us to deal with individuals, instead of masses. But according to Watson, the Apostle, in speaking of the rejec- tion of Esau, and the selection of Jacob, and of the remaining selections of Rom. ix and xi, only employs the names of the two Patriarchs, to impersonate the two nations of Israel and Edom. He quotes in confirmation, Mai. i : 2; 3 ; Gen. xxv : 23. But as Calvin well remarks, the primogeniture typified the blessing of true redemption ; so that Jacob's election to the former represented that to the latter. Let the personal histories of the two men decide this. Did not the mean, supplanting Jacob become the humble, penitent saint; while the generous, dashing Esau degenerated into the reckless, Pagan, Nomad chief? The selection of the two posterities, the one for Church privileges, and the other for Pagan defection, was the conse- quence of the personal election and rejection of the two pro- genitors. The Arminian gloss violates every law of Hebrew 'thought and religious usage. According to these, the posterity follow the staUts of their progenitor. According to the Armini- ans, the progenitors would follow the status of their posterity. Farther, the whole discussion of these chapters is personal, it is individuals with whom God deals here. The election cannot be of masses to privilege, because the elect are explicitly excepted out of the masses to which they belonged ecclesiastically. See ch. ix : vs. 6, 7, 15, 23, 24; ch. xi ; vs. 2, 4, 5, 7. "The elec- tion hath obtained it and the rest were blinded." The discus- sion ranges, also, over others than Hebrews and Edomites, to Pharaoh, an individual unbeliever, &c. Last, the blessings

228 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

given in this election are personal. See Rom. viii : 29 ; Eph. i : 5 ; 2 Thess. ii : 13.

God's decree we found possessed of the properties of 3. Predestination eter- ^nity, universality, eternity, efficiency and nal, efficacious, un- immutability, sovereignty, absoluteness and changeable, &c. wisdom. Inasmuch as predestination is but

a part, to our apprehension, of this decree, it partakes of all those properties, as a part of the whole. And the general evidence would be the same presented on the general subject of the decree. The part of course is not universal as was the whole. But we shall find just what the general argument would have led us to expect: that the decree of predestination is:

(a) Eternal. Eph. 1:4. " He hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. " 2 Thess. ii : 13. "From the beginning." 2 Tim. 1:9. " Before the world began. " (See last Lect.)

(b) Immutably efficacious. There is no reason why this part of the decree should not be as much so as all the rest : for God's foreknowledge and control of the acts of all His creatures have been already established. He has no more difficulty in securing the certain occurrence of all those acts of volition, from man and devils, which are necessary to the certain redemption of the elect, than in any other department of His almighty providence. Why then, should this part of the decree be exempted from those emphatic assertions of its universal and absolute efficacy? Numb. xxiii:i9; Ps. xxxiii : ii. Is. xlvi: 10. But farther, unless God's purpose of saving each elect sinner were immutable and efficacious, Christ would have no certain warrant that He would ever see of the travail of His soul at all. For the same causes that seduce one might seduce another. Again : no sinner is saved without special and Almighty grace ; for his depravity is total, and his heart wholly averse from God ; so that if God has not provided, in His eternal plan, resources of gracious power, adequate to sub- due unto Himself, and to sustain in grace, every sinner He attempts to save, I see no probability that any will be saved at all. For, the proneness to apostacy is such in all, that if God did not take efficacious care of them, the best would backslide and fail of Heaven. The efficacy of the decree of election is also proved by the fact, that God has pre-arranged all the means for its effectuation. See. Rom. viii : 29, 30. And in fine^ a multitude of Scripture confirms this precious truth : Matt. xxiv:25; John x: 28-30; xvii : 6, 12; Heb. vi : 17; 2d. Tim. ii : 19.

Objections against this gracious truth are almost countless,.

^, . . _ as though instead of beins^ one of the most

Objections to efficient • • c- ■ ^ •. • j

predestination. precious m Scripture, it were oppressive ana

cruel. It is said that the infallibility of the

elect, and their security in Christ, Matt, xxiv : 24; John x : 28,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 229

only guarantee them against such assaults as their free will may refuse to assent to ; and imply nothing as to the purpose of God to permit or prevent the object of His favour from going astray of his own accord. Not to tarry on more minute answers, the simple reply to this is : that then, there would be no guarantees at all ; and these gracious Scriptures are mere mockeries of our hope ; for it is notorious that the only way the spiritual safety of a believer can be injured is by the assent of his own free will ; because it is only then that there is res- ponsibility or guilt.

It is objected that this election cannot be immutably Objected that the efificacious, because we read in Scripture Saints warned against of saints who are warned against forfeiting ^^^^^^S- it ; of others who felt a wholesome fear of

doing so ; and of God's threats that He would on occasion of certain sins,blot their names from His book of life, &c. Rom. xiv: 15; I Cor. ix : 27 ; Ps. Ixix : 28 ; Rev. xxii : 19 ; 2 Pet. i : 10. As to the last passage, to make sure (^sj^acau ^ottlad-at, our election, is most manifestly spoken only with reference to the believer's own apprehension of ic, and comfort from it ; not as to the reality of God's secret purpose. This is fully borne out by the means indicated — diligence in holy living. Such fruits being the consequence, and not the cause of God's grace to us, it would simply be preposterous to propose to ensure or strengthen His secret purpose of grace, by their productions. All they can do is to strengthen our own apprehension that •such a purpose exists. When the persecuted Psalmi t prays, Ps. Ixix : 28, that God would " blot his enemies out of the book of the living," it by no means seems clear that anything more is imprecated than their removal from this life. But grant the other meaning, as we do, in Rev. xxii: 19, the obvious ex- planation is that God speaks of them according to their seeming and profession. The language is adapted ad himtinem. It is not intended to decide whether God has a secret immutable purpose of love or not, as to them, whether they were ever elected and effectually called indeed, and may yet be lost ; but it only states the practical truth, that wickedness would forfeit that position in God's grace, which they professed to have. Several of the other passages are in part explained by the fact that the Christians addressed had not yet attained a comforta- ble assurance that they were elected. Hence they might most consistently feel all these wholesome fears, lest the partial and uncertain hope they entertained might turn out spurious. But the most general and thorough answer which covers all these cases is this : Granting that God has a secret purpose infallibly to save a given soul, that purpose embraces means as fully as ends ; and those means are such as suit a rational free agent, in- cluding all reasonable appeals to hope and fear, prospect of danger, and such like reasonable motives. Now, that an elect

230 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

man may fall totally, is naturally possible, considering him in his own powers ; hence, when God plies this soul with fears of fall- ing it is by no means any proof that God intends to permit him to fall, in His secret purpose. Those fears may be the very means designed by God to keep him from it.

God's predestination is wise. It is not grounded on the

^ , . foreseen excellence of the elect, but it is

belecUon not a ca- 11,1 j 1 , .1 ,-

price. doubtles grounded on good reasons, worthy of

the divine wisdom. See Rom. xi :-end, words spoken by Paul with especial reference to this part of the decree. The sovereignty and unconditional nature of God's predestina- tion will be postponed till we come to discuss the Arminian view.

There is undoubtedly a predestination of angels. They are a part of God's creation and government, destinated ^ ^'^ ^'^^' ^"^ if what we have asserted of the universal- ity of His purpose is true, it must fix their destiny and foresee all their acts, just as men's. His sover- eignty, wisdom, infinite foreknowledge, and power necessitate the supposition. The Scriptures confirm it, telling us of elect angels, i Tim. v: 21; of "holy angels," Matt, xxv : 31, e^ passim, as contrasted with wicked angels ; that " God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to heh, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," 2 Pet. ii : 4. Of the "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, " Matt, xxv : 41. Of the " angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, whom God hath reserved under darkness, in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day," Jude. 6 : and of Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels," Rev. xii : 7. Collat- ing these passages,.! think we clearly learn, that there are two kinds of spirits of that order ; holy and sinful angels, servants of Christ and servants of Satan ; that they were all created in an estate of holiness and happiness, and abode in the region called Heaven ; (God's holiness and goodness are sufficient proof that He would never have created them otherwise), that the evil angels voluntarily forfeited their estate by sinning, and were then excluded forever from Heaven and holiness; that those who maintained their estate were elected thereto by God, and that their estate of holiness and blessedness is now forever assured. Now the most natural inference from these Bible facts is, that a covenant of works was the dispensation under which God's predestination of angels was effectuated. The fact that those who sinned, fell thereby into a state of irreparable condemnation is most naturally explained by such a covenant. The fact that the elect angels received the adoption of life by maintaining their holiness for a time, seems almost to necessitate that supposition. That the probation under that covenant was temporary, is implied in the fact that some are already separated,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 23 1

and known as elect, while others are condemned. The former must be finally justified and confirmed; the latter finally reprobated.

1st. Now it is manifest, that these gracious and righteous

dealings of God with His angels in time,

Predestination of an- ^^^^ ^^^ foreordained by Him from eternity.

gels dirters from men s. ,- ,, tt i • ■ i

Those who fell, He must have permissively

ordained to fall, and those who are confirmed, He must have selected from eternity to be confirmed. But in two respects,- this election of angels differs from that of men. God's predes- tination apprehended men, as all lying alike in a mass of total depravity and condemnation, and the difference He has made was in pure mercy, unprompted by any thing of good foreseen in the saints. But God's predestination apprehended angels as standing alike in innocency at first, and as left to the determi- nation of a will which, as yet, had full ability to keep the law perfectly. In the election of men, while the decree is uncon- ditional, its effectuation is dependent on the elect man's believing and repenting. So, in the case of angels, while the decree was unconditional, the effectuation of it seems to have been conditioned on the elect angel's keeping the law perfectly for a given time. Now here is the difference of the two cases; in the elect man the ability of will to perform that condition of his salvation is inwrought in him by God's power, executing His efficacious decree, (see last Lect.) by His sovereign and almighty regeneration of the dead soul. In the case of the elect angel, the condition of his salvation was fulfilled in his own natural strength ; and was ordained by God no otherwise than by His permissive decree. So also, the effectuating of the reprobation of the non-elect angels was dependent on their voluntary disobedience, and this too was only determined by God's permissive decree. It has been asked if all the angels were alike innocent and peccable, with full ability of will to keep the law perfectly, and yet with freedom of will to sin ; how came it that the experiment did not result alike for all, that all did not fall or stand, that like causes did not produce like effects ? Must there not have been a cause for the differ- ent results? And must not this cause be sought outside the angels' wills, in God's agency? The answer may be, that the outward relations of no two beings to circumstances and beings other than themselves can ever be identical. In those different circumstances, were presented occasional causes for volitions, sufficient to account for different volitions from wills that were at first in similar moral states. And it was by His providential ordering of those outward relations and circumstances, that God was able permissively to determine the results. Yet the acts of the two classes of angels, good and bad, were wholly their own.

The second difference between their election and man's,

232 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

2^j ,j0- is that the angels were not chosen in a medi-

ator. They needed none, because they were not chosen out of a state of guilt, and had not arrayed God's moral attributes against them. Some have supposed that their confirming grace was and is mediated to them by Jesus Christ, quoting Col. ii: 10; i Pet. i: 12; Heb. i: 6; Phil. 2 : 10; I Pet. iii: 22; Eph. i: 10; Col. i: 14, 15, 20.

These passages doubtless teach that the Son was, in the beginning, the immediate agent of creation for these, as for all other beings ; and that the God-man now includes angels in His mediatorial kingdom, in the same sense in which He includes the rest of the universe, besides the saints. But that He is not a mediator for angels is clear, from the fact that, while He is never called such. He is so emphatically called "the Mediator between God and man," i Tim. ii : 5. Second. He has assumed no community of nature with angels. Last. It is expressly denied in Heb. ii : 16, 17. (Greek.)

5. All who call themselves Calvinists admit that God's decree is, in His mind, a cotemporaneous unit. Yet the attempt to assign an order to its relative parts, has led to three different schemes of predestination : that of the Supralapsarian, of the S7iblapsarian, and of the Hypothetic Universalist.

The first suppose that in a rational mind, that which is

Q„...oio„. • u ultimate as end, is first in design ; and that,

bupralapsaiian scheme. . , r 1 • 1 • 1

m the process 01 plannmg, the mmd passes

from the end to the means, traveling as it were backwards. Hence, God first designed His own glory by the salvation of a definite number of men conceived as yet only as in posse, and the reprobation of another definite number; that then He pur- posed their creation, then the permission of their fall, and then the other parts of the plan of redemption for the elect. I do not mean to represent that they impute to God an actual suc- cession of time as to the rise of the parts of the decree in His eternal mind, but that these divines represent God as planning rnan's creation and fall, as a means for carrying out His predes- tination, instead of planning his election as a means for repair- ing his fall.

The Sublapsarian assigns the opposite order; that God

e uj • , determined to create man in His own imasfe,

buMapsarian scheme. ^11. 1 . r 1

to place him under a covenant 01 works,

to permit his fall, and with reference to the fallen and guilty

state thus produced, to elect in sovereign mercy some to be

saved, passing by the rest in righteous judgment upon their

sins, and that He further decreed to send Jesus Christ to redeeni

the elect. This milder scheme the Supralapsarians assert to be

attended with the vice of the Arminian, in making the decree

conditionaj; in that God's decree of predestination is made

dependent on man's use of his free will under the covenant of

Avorks. They also assert that their scheme is the symmetrical

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 233

one, in that it assigns the rational order which exists between ultimate end and intermediate means.

In my opinion this is a question which never ought to have been raised. Both schemes are illogical and erron ous. contradictory to the true state of facts. But

the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honourable to God. The Supralap- sarian, under a pretense of greater symmetry, is in reality the more illogical of the two, and misrepresents the divine charac- ter and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind. God's decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts ; because it is a cotem- poraneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intu- ition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan ; but all parts equally pres- ent, and all equally primary to His mind. As to the decree to create man, to permit his fall, to elect some to life ; neither part preceded any other part with God. But His purpose to elect had reference to a state of facts which was to result from His purpose to create, and permit the fall. It does not seem to me that the Sublapsarian scheme makes the decree conditional. True, one result decreed is dependent on another result decreed; but this is totally another thing. No scheme can avoid this, not even the Supralapsarian, unless it does away with all agency except God's, and makes Him the direct author of sin.

Objections to t h e But we object mor& particularly to the Supralapsarian. Supralapsarian scheme.

(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only ; and in making creation a means of their salva- tion or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as •existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a pre- requisite of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," Jno. xv : 19, and out of the "same lump " with the vessels of dishonour, Rom. ix : 21. They were then regarded as being, along with the non-elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer, Eph. i : 4 ; iii : II, which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to

234 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

be wrought in us by Christ, i Pet. i : 2; 2 Thess. ii : 13. (d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy : Rom. ix : 15, 16; xi : 5, 6, and preterition is an act of justice, Rom. ix : 22. Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestinated as fallen ; and is not per- mitted to fall because predestinated. I will conclude this part^ by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, §5.

1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God's will towards- some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred ; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God's ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to cre- ate them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illus- trate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to- express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they a|ie ante- cedent to them : else sin would be on account of damnation,, whereas damnation is on account of sin ; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. i: 5
  2. Rom. viii: 28
  3. Jas. i: 17
  4. Acts xxii: 31
  5. Eph. 1:4
  6. 2 Tim. 1:9
  7. John x: 28-30
  8. Rev. xxii: 19
  9. Col. ii: 10
  10. Heb. i: 6
  11. Eph. i: 10
  12. Col. i: 14

SYLLABUS

1. State the doctrine as taught by the Hypothetic Universahsts, Amyraut and Camero.

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 17 and 18, ^ 13-20. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 28, | I, 2. Richard Baxter's " Universal Redemption."

2. State and refute the Arminian scheme of predestination.

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 10, 11, 12 and 17. Hill, Div., bk. iv, ch. 7, ^ 2 and 3. Dick, Lect. 35. Watson's t(bi supra.

3. What !s Cod's decree of pretention as to those finally lost? What its gi-ound ? How proved ? And how does God harden such ?

Turrettm, Loc. iv, Qu. 14, 15. Hill, as above. Dick, Lect. 36. Wesley's Sermons.

4. Is predestination consistent with God's justice? With His holiness? With His benevolence and sincerity in the offer of mercy to all ?

Calvin's Inst., bk. iii, ch. 23. Hill, as above. Dick, Lect. 36. Jno. Howe. Letter to Ro. Boyle. Turrettin, Pontes Sol., Loc. iv, Qu. 17.

5. What should be the mode of pi^eaching and practical effect of the doctrine of predestination on the Christian life?

Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 6. Dick, Lect. 36. Conf. of Faith, ch. 3.

Come French Presbyterian Divines of Saumur about 1630-

50, devised still another scheme of relations between the

, . , parts of the decree, representing^ God as first

I. Hypothetic scheme. /• j ^ • .■ \ • .

^^ (in order, not in time) purposing to create

man ; second, to place him under a covenant of works, and to permit his fall ; third, to send Christ to provide and offer satis- faction for all, out of His general compassion for all the fallen ; but fourth, foreseeing that all would surely reject it because of their total depravity, to select out of the rebellious mass, some, in His sovereign mercy, to whom He would give effectual calling. They supposed that this theory would remove the difficulties concerning the extent of the sacrifice of Christ, and also recon- cile the passages of Scripture which declare God's universal compassion for sinners, with His reprobation of the non-elect. This scheme is free from many of the objections which lie against the Arminian ; it holds fast to the truth of original sin, and it kvoids the ab- surdity of conditioning God's decree of election on a foresight of the saints' faith and repentance. But in two respects it is untenable. If the idea of a real succeesion in time between the parts of the divine decree be relinquished, as it must be ; then this scheme is perfectly illusory, in representing God as decree- ing to send Christ to provide a redemption to be offered to all, on condition of faith, and this out of His general compassion. For if He foresees the certain rejection of all at the time, and at the same time purposes sovereignly to withhold the grace which would work faith in the soul, from some, this scheme of

235

236 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

election really makes Christ to be related, in God's purpose, to the non-elect, no more closely nor beneficially than the stricter Calvinistic scheme. But second and chiefly, it represents Christ as not purchasing for His people the grace of effectual calling, by which they are persuaded and enabled to embrace redemp- tion. But God's purpose to confer this is represented as dis- connected with Christ and His purchase, and subsequent, in order, to His work, and the foresight of its rejection by sinners. Whereas Scripture represents that this gift, along with all other graces of redemption, is given us in Christ, having been pur- chased for His people by Him. Eph. i : 3 ; Phil, i : 29 : Heb. xii: 2.

I have postponed to the last, the fourth scheme for arrang- ing the order of the parts of the decree, which 2. Arminian scheme. • °i * • • tt -ir i. u /^ j 1

IS the Armmian. Unwilhng to rob God openly

of His infinite perfection, as is done by the Socinians, they admit that He has some means of foreseeing the contingent acts of free-agents, although He neither can nor does, consistently with their free-agency, exercise any direct foreordination over those acts. Such contingent acts, they say, would be unknowable to a finite mind , but this does not prove that God may not have some mode of certainly foreknowing them, which implies no foreordination, and which is inscrutable to us. This foresight combines with His eternal purpose in the following order, ist. God decreed to create man holy and happy, and to place him under a covenant of works. 2nd. God foreseeing man's fall into a state of total depravity and condemnation, decreed to send Jesus Christ to provide redemption for all. (This redemp- tion included the purchase of common, sufficient grace for all sinners.) And God also, in this connection, determined the general principle that faith should be the condition of an actual interest in this redemption. 3d. Next He foresaw that some would so improve their common grace as to come to Christ, turn from sm and persevere in holiness to the end of life. These He eternally purposed to save. Others, He foresaw, would neglect their privileges, so as to reject, or after embracing, to forsake Christ ; and these He eternally purposed to leave in their guilt and ruin. Thus His purpose as to individuals, while eternal, is conditioned wholly on the conduct foreseen in them.

This plausible scheme seems to be, at the first glance, Objections, ist. That attended with several advantages for recon- the decree cannot be ciling God's goodness and sincerity with the conditional. sinner's damnation. But the advantages are

only seeming For i. The scheme is overthrown by all the reasons which showed generally that God's decrees cannot be conditional; (see p. 218, &c.) and especially by these, (a.) That every one of the creature acts is also foreordained, on which a part of the decree is supposed to be conditioned, (b.) That all the future events into which these contingent acts enter,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2^J

directly or indirectly, as causes, must be also contingent ; which would cast a quality of uncertainty and possible failure over- God's whole plan of redemption and moral government, and much of His other providence, (c.) And that God would no longer be absolute sovereign; for, instead of the creatures depending on Him alone, He would depend on the creature.

One can scarcely believe that Paul would have answered

, ^, „ , , the objections usually raised against God's 2nd. That Paul does • „ j t t j • ?. • i i

not reply thus to cavils, sovereign decree, as He does m Rom. ix, had He inculcated this Arminian view of it. In verses 14 and 19, he anticipates those objections ; ist that God would be unjust ; 2d that He would destroy man's free agency, and He deigns no other answer than to reaffirm the absolute sovereignty of God in the matter, and to repudiate the objec- tions as sinful cavils. How different this from the answer of the Arminian to these cavils. He always politely evades them by saying that all God's dealings with men are suspended on the improvement they choose to make of His common mercy offered to them. This contrast leads us to believe that St. Paul was not an Arminian.

The believer's faith, penitence, and perseverance in holiness , ^ . , „ could never be so foreseen by God, as to be

"^rd. Faith, &c., conse- ,i i-,- • tt- ^ i ^ • .

quences of electing grace, ^^e condition moving Him to determine to bestow salvation on him, because no child of Adam ever has any true faith, &c., except as fruits of God's grace bestowed in election. This is evinced in manifold ways throughout Scripture, (a.) Man is too depraved ever to exer- cise these graces, except as moved thereto by God, Rom. viii : 7; 2 Cor. iii : 5; Rom. vii : 18; Gen. vi : 5, (b.) The elect are declared to be chosen to the enjoyment of these graces, not on account of the exercise of them, Rom. viii : 29 ; 2 Thess. ii : 13, 14; Eph. i: 4 ; ii : 10. (c.) The very faith, penitence and perseverance in holiness which Arminians represent as con- ditions-moving God to elect man, the Scripture represents as gifts of God's grace inwrought by Him in the elect, as conse- quences of His election, Eph. ii : 8 ; Acts v: 31; 2 Tim. ii : 25; Phil, i: 6; 2 Pet. i: 3. (d.) All the elect believe on Christ, Jno. x: 16, 27 to 29; vi : 37, 39; xvii : 2, 9, 24, and none others do, Jno. x : 26 : Acts xiii : 48 ; ii : 47. Couple these two facts together, and they furnish a strong evidence that faith is the consequence (therefore not the cause) of election.

The Scriptures in the most express and emphatic terms declare that it was no goodness in the elect 4th. Express texts. ^^j^j^j^ C2.v.-,&di God to choose them ; that His electing love found them lying in the same mass of corruption and wrath with the reprobate, every way deserving the same fate, and chose them out of it for reasons commending them- selves to His own good pleasure, and in sovereign benevolence.

238 SYLLABUS AXD NOTES

This was seen in Jacob and Esau, Rom. ix : 1 1-13, as to Israel ; Ezek. xvi : 3-6. As to all sinners, Rom. ix : 15, 16, 18, 21 ; Rom. xi : 4-7 ; viii : 28. (Here the Arminians claim that God's foreknowledge precedes and prompts His foreordination. But we have shown that this foreknowledge implies selection.) 2 Tim. i: g; Matt, xi : 26 ; Jno. xv : 16-19.

5th. From the Arminian doctrine of conditional election, must flow this distinction, admitted by many Wesleyans. Those who God foresaw would believe and repent. He thereupon elected to adoption. But all Arminians believe that an adopted believer may " fall from grace." Hence, the smaller number, who God foresaw would persevere in gospel grace, unto death. He thereupon elected to eternal life. And the persons elected to eternal lite on foresight of their perseverance, are not identi- cal with those elected to adoption on foresight of their faith. But now, if the former are, in the omniscience of God, elected to eternal life on foresight of their perseverance, then they must be certain to persevere. We have here, therefore, the doctrine of the perseverance of this class of the elect. The inference is unavoidable. On this result we remark first: It is generally conceded by both Calvinists and Arminians, that the doctrine of perseverance is consistent only with that of unconditional election, and refutes the opposite. Second : In every instance of the perseverance of those elected unto eternal life (on certain foresight of their perseverance) we have a case of volitions free and responsible, and yet certainly occurring. But this, the Arminians hold, infringes man's freedom. Third : No effect is without a cause. Hence, there must be some efficient cause for this certain perseverance. Where shall it be sought ? In a contingent will ? or in efficacious grace? These are the only known sources. It cannot be found in a contingent source ; for this is a contradiction. It must then be sought in efficacious grace. But this, if dispensed by omniscience, can be no other than a proof and result of electing grace.

The word reprobate (ar/rW//.f>c) is not, so far as I know, applied in the Scriptures to the subject of 3. Pretention. predestination. Its etymology and usage

would suggest the meaning of something rejected upon under- going a test or trial, and hence, something condemned or rejected. Thus Rom. i : 28, ddnxctMu vohv, a mind given over to condemnation and desertion, in consequence of great sin, 2 Tim. iii : 8. Sectaries, ddoxcuoc tzsju rir^v Tziaztv, finally condemned and given over to apostasy concerning the Christian system, i Cor. ix : 27, " Lest after I have preached to others, I myself should be ddoy.cu.o::," rejected at the final test, i. e.. Judgment Day. Hence the more general sense of "worthless," Tit. i : 16; Heb. vi : 8. The application of this word to the negative part of the

^, decree of predestination has doubtless prej-

1 he word ill-chosen. j- i t^. • i 1 i. j i. •„

udiced our cause. It is calculated to mis-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 239

represent and mislead, because it suggests too much the idea ■of a comparative judicial result. For then, the query arises, if the non-elect and elect have been tested as to their deserts, in the divine mind, how comes it that the elect are acquitted -when they are as guilty, and the non-elect condemned when they are no worse ? Is not this partiality ? But the fact is, that in election, God acted as a sovereign, as well as a judge; and that the elect are not taken because they are less guilty upon trial, but because God had other secret, though sufficient reasons. If the negative part of the decree of predestination then must be spoken of as a decree of reprobation, it must be understood in a modified sense.

The theologians, while admitting the strict unity of God's

Does it include pre- decree, divide reprobation into two elements, terition and predam- as apprehended by us, preterition and pre- '"^t^o"- damnation. These Calvinists, were they con-

sistent, would apply a similar analysis to the decree of election, and divide it into a selection and a prejustification. Thus we should have the doctrine of an eternal justification, which they properly reject as erroneous. Hence, the distinction should be consistently dropped in explaining God's negative predesti- nation.

I would rather say, that it consists simply of a sovereign, yet righteous purpose to leave out the non-elect, which preter- ition was foreseen and intended to result in their final righteous condemnation. The decree of reprobation is then, in its essence, a simple preterition. It is indeed intelligent and intentional in God. He leaves them out of His efficacious plan and purpose of mercy, not out of a general inattention or ■overlooking of them, but knowingly and sovereignly. Yet objectively this act is only negative, because God does nothing to those thus passed by, to make their case any worse, or to give any additional momentum to their downward course. He leaves them as they are. Yea, incidentally. He does them many kindnesses, extends to multitudes of them the calls of His word, and even the remonstrances of His Spirit, preventing them from becoming as wicked as they would otherwise have been. But the practical or efficacious part of His decree is, simply that He will not " make them willing in the day of His power."

When we thus explain it, there is abundant evidence of a decree of preterition. It is inevitably implied

Preterition proved. .^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^^ ^f election, COUpled with the

fact that all are neither elected nor saved. If salvation is of God ; if God is a Being of infinite intelligence, and if He has eternally purposed to save some; then He has ipso facto equally purposed from eternity to leave the others in their ruin. And to this agree the Scriptures, Rom. ix : 13, 17, 18, 21 and 22; Matt, xi : 25 ; Rom. xi : 7; 2 Tim. ii : 20; Jude. 4; i Pet. ii : 8.

240 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

This is a part of God's word which has ever been assailed!

with the fiercest cavils. It has been repre-

Objections. Answers. ^^^^^^ ^^ picturing a God, who created a

number of unfortunate immortals, and endued them with capac- ities for sinning and suffering, only in order that He might damn them forever ; and to this wretched fate they are inexor- ably shut up, by the iron decree, no matter what penitent efforts or what cries for mercy and escape they may put forth ; while the equally or more guilty objects of the divine caprice and favouritism are admitted to a 'Heaven which they cannot forfeit, no matter how vilely they behave. There is no wonder that a Wesley should denounce the doctrine thus misrepre- sented, as worthy only of Satan. There is, indeed, enough in the truth of this subject, to fill every thoughtful mind with solemn awe and holy fear of that God, who holds the issues of our redemption in His sovereign hand. But how differently does His dealing appear, when we remember that He created all His creatures at first in holiness and happiness ; that He gave them an adequate opportunity to stand ; that He has done nothing to make the case of the non-elect worse than their own choice makes it, but on the contrary, sincerely and mercifully warns- them by conscience and His word against that wicked choice ; that it is all a monstrous dream to fancy one of these non-elect seeking Heaven by true penitence, and excluded by the inex- orable decree, because they all surely yet voluntarily prefer their impenitence, so that God is but leaving them to their pre- ferred ways ; and that the only way He ensures the elect from- the destruction due their sins, is by ensuring their repentance, faith, and diligent strivings to the end in a holy life.

Yet it must be confessed that some of the odiousness of Is pretention ground- the doctrine is in part due to the unwise ed on the sin of those views of it presented by the Orthodox some- passed by. times, going beyond all that God's majesty,, sovereignty and word require, out of a love of hypothesis. Thus, it is disputed what is the ground of this righteous preter- ition of the non-elect. The honest reader of his Bible would suppose that it was, of course, their guilt and wickedness fore- seen by God, and, for wise reasons, permissively decreed by Him. This, we saw, all but the supralapsarian admitted in sub- stance. God's election is ever^^wherc represented in Scripture, as an act of mercy, and His pretention as an act of righteous anger against sin. The elect are vessels of mercy, the non- elect of wrath. (God does not show anger at anything but sin) as in Rom. ix : 22. Everywhere it is sin which excludes from His favour, and sin alone.

But it is urged, with an affected over-refinement, the sin of the non-elect cannot be the ground of God's preterition, because all Adam's seed being viewed as equally depraved, had this been the ground, all would have been passed by. I reply,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 24 1

yes ; if this had been the only consideration, pro or con, present in God's mind. The ill-desert of all was in itself a sufficient ground for God to pass by all. But when His sovereign wisdom suggested some reason, unconnected with the relative desert or ill-desert of sinners, which was a good and sufficient ground for God's choosing a part; this only left the same original ground, ill-desert, operating on His mind as to the remainder. It is perfectly true that God's sovereignty concerns itself with the preterition as well as the election ; for the separate reason which grounded the latter is sovereign. But with what pro- priety can it be said that this secret sovereign reason is the ground of his preterition, when the very point of the case was that it was a reason which did not apply to the non-elect, but only to the elect? As to the elect, it overruled the ground for their preterition, which would otherwise have been found, in their common ill-desert. As to the non-elect, it did not apply, and thus left the original ground, their ill-deserts, in full force. If all sinning men had been subjects of a decree of prete- rition, nobody would have questioned, but that God's ground for passing them by was simply their ill-desert. Now, then, if a secret, sovereign motive, counterpoising that presented by the ill-desert, led to the election of some ; how does this alter the ground for God's preterition of the rest ? Three traitors are justly condemned to death for capital crimes confessed. The king ascertains that two of them are sons of a noble citizen, who had died for the commonwealth ; and the supreme judge is moved by this consideration to spare the lives of these men. For what is the third criminal hung ? No one has any doubt in answering : " For his treason." The original cause of death remains in operation against him, because no contravening fact existed in his case.

But it is said again : that if we make the sin of the non- elect the ground of their rejection, then by parity of reasoning, we must make the foreseen piety of the elect the ground of their election ; and thus return to the error of conditional decrees. This perversely overlooks the fact, that, while the elect have no piety of their own originating to be foreseen, tlie others have an impiety of their own. Reviewing the arguments against conditional election, the student will see that this is the key to all : It cannot be, because no men will have any piety to foresee, save as it is the result of God's grace bestowed from election. But is it so with men's sin ? Just the opposite. Sin is the very condition in which God foresees all men as standing, for all except supralapsarians admit that God in predestination regards man as fallen. Man's foreseen sin may be the ground of God's preterition, because it is not the effect of that prete- rition, but of another part of His eternal purpose, viz : that to permit the fall. And, as again and again taught, while the decree is absolute, the results decreed are conditioned ; and we cannot 16*

242 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

but conceive God as predicating one part of His eternal purpose on a state of facts which was destined to proceed out of another part thereof.

Again : it is said, Scriptures teach, that the sin of the non- elect was not the ground of their preterition. " In John x : 26, continued unbelief is the consequence, and therefore not the ground of the Pharisees' preterition. " Matt, xi : 25 ; Rom. ix : 11, 18. "God's will," they say, "and not the non- elect's sin, is the ground of His purpose to harden." And " Esau was rejected as much without regard to his evil, as Jacob was elected without regard to his good deeds." To the first of these points I reply, that the withholding of God's grace is but the negative occasion of a sinner's unbelief, just as the absence of the physician from a sick man is the occasion, and not the cause, of His death. Men say that " he died because he failed to receive medical help," when speaking popularly. But, they know that the disease, and not the physician, killed him.' So, our Saviour teaches, in Jno. x : 26 ; that the stubborn unbe- lief of the Pharisees was occasioned by God's refraining from the bestowal of renewing grace. But He does not deny that that this unbelief was caused by their own depravity, as left uninfluenced by the Spirit. Turrettin (Loc. iv : Qu. 15,) although inconsistently asserting on this point the supralapsarian extreme, says, (Sec. 3,) that we must distinguish between the non-elect man's original unbelief, and his acquired : and that it is the latter only, which he denies to be a ground of preterition, because it is a result thereof He admits that the original unbelief may be a ground of preterition. This virtually con- cedes the point. To the second argument, we reply, that God's decree of preterition is, like all others, guided by His e'joo/.ia. But is this sovereign good pleasure motiveless ? Is it irrational caprice ? Surely not. It is the purpose of a sovereign ; but of one who is as rational, just, holy and good, as He is absolute. Such a being would not pass by, in righteous displeasure, His creature in whom He saw no desert of displeasure. The third point is made from the oft-cited case of the twins, Esau and Jacob. Let the supralapsarian strain the passage to mean that Esau's preterition was no more grounded in his ill-desert, than Jacob's election in his merit, because " the children had not done good nor evil ;" and he will only reach a result obnoxious to his own view as to mine. He will make the Apostle teach that these children had no original sin, and that they stood before the divine prescience in that impossible state of moral neutrality, of which Pelagians prate. We are shut up to inter- pret the passage, just as Turrettin does elsewhere, that it is only a relative guilt and innocence between Esau and Jacob, which the Apostle asserts. In fact, both " were by nature children of wrath, even as others."

When it is said that God hardens the non-elect, it is not,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 243

, , , . and cannot be intended, that He exerts posi- God s nardenma:, .• • a 1.1 ^ 1 ^1

^l^at? ^ tive inrluence upon them to make them worse.

The proof of this was given under the ques- tion, whether God can be the author of sin. See especially Jas. i : 13. God is only the negative cause of hardening — the positive depravation comes only from the sinner's own voluntary feelings and acts. And the mode in which God gives place to, or permits this self-inflicted work, is by righteously withholding His restraining word and Spirit ; and second, by surrounding the sinner (through His permissive providence) with such occa- sions and opportunities as the guilty man's perverse heart will voluntarily abuse to increase his guilt and obduracy. This dealing, though wrong in rnen, is righteous in God. Even when God's decree and providence concerning sins are thus explained, our opponents cavil at the facts. They say that the rule of holiness enjoined on us is, not only to do no sin, but to prevent all the sin in others we righteously can. They say that the same rule obliges God. They say we represent Him as like a man who, witnessing the perpetration of a crime, and having both the right and power to prevent it, stands idly by : and they refer us to such Scriptures as Prov. xxiv : ii, 12. And when we remind them, that God permissively ordains those sins, not for the sake of their evil, but for the sake of the excellent and holy ends He will bring out, they retort, that we represent Him as " doing evil that good may come." These objections derive all their plausibility from forgetting that we are creatures and bondsmen of God, while He is supreme judge. The judicial retribution of sin is not our function : He claims it as His own. Rom. xii : 19. It is a recognized principle of His rule, to make permitted sins the punishment of sins. Hence, we deny that it follows, the same rules oblige Him, which bind us. It does not follow, that the sovereign proprietor can righteously deal towards His possessions, only in the modes in which fellow servants can properly treat each other. Hence such dealing, making guilty souls the executors, in part, of their own right- eous punishment, as would be an intrusion for us, is righteous and holy for Him.

To notice briefly the standing objections : The doctrine of

. . predestination as we have defined it, is not 4. Is predestination • • i. x. 'i-t ^i ' ^- j • • i.- i-i-

unTustly partial ? mconsistent With the justice and impartiality

of God. His agency in the fall of angels and men was only permissive — the act and choice were theirs. They having broken God's laws and depraved themselves, it would have been just in God to leave them all under condem- nation. How then can it be more than just when He punishes only a part ? The charge of partiality has been absurdly brought here, as though there could be partiality where there are no rights at all, in any creature, on the mercy of God ; and Acts X : 34 ; Levit. xix : 1 5 ; Deut. i : 17; 2 Sam.xiv : 14; Rom.

244 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ii : II, have been quoted against us. As Calvin very acutely remarks on the first of these, one's persona, 7:()bao)-m^ in the sense of these passages, means, not the moral character, as judicially well or ill-deserving, but his accidental position in society, as Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, plebeian or nobleman. And in this sense it is literally true of election, that in it God respects no man's pcrsoiia, but takes him irrespective of all these factitious advantages and disadvantages. To this foolish charge. Matt, xx: 15, is a sufficient answer. God's sovereignty ought undoubtedly to come in as a reply. Within the bounds of His other perfections of righteousness, truth and benevo- lence, God is entitled to make what disposal of His own He is pleased, and men are His property — Rom. ix : 20, 21. Paul does not imply here that God is capable of doing injustice to an innocent creature, in order to illustrate His sovereignty ; but that in such a case as this of predestination, where the condem- nation of all would have been no more than they deserved, He can exercise His sovereignty, in sparing and punishing just such as He pleases, without a particle of injustice.

2. It is objected, that God's holiness would forbid such a predestination. How, it is said, can it be o y . compatible with the fact that God hates

sin, for Him to construct an arrangement, He having full power to effectuate a different one, by which He voluntarily and intentionally leaves multitudes of His creatures in increasing and everlasting wickedness? And the same objection is raised against it from His benevolence. The answer is, that this is but the same difficulty presented by the origin of evil ; and it presses on the Calvinist with no more force than on the Armin- ian, or even on the Socinian. Allow to God a universal, per- fect foreknowledge, as the Arminian does, and the very same difficulty is presented, how an almighty God should have knowingly adopted a system for the universe, which would embody such results. For even if the grossest Pelagian view be adopted, that God is literally unable certainly to prevent the wicked acts of man's free will, and yet leave him a free agent, it would doubtless have been in His power to let alone creating those who. He foresaw, would make a miserable immortality for themselves, in spite of His grace. The Arminian is obliged to say : " There are doubtless inscrutable reasons, unknown to us, but seen by God to be sufficient, why He should permit it?" The same appeal to our ignorance is just as available for the Calvinist. And if the lowest Socinian ground is taken, which denies to God a universal foreknowledge of the volitions of free agents, still we must suppose one of two things. He must either have less wisdom than many of His creatures, or else. He made these men and angels, knowing in the general, that large immortal misery would result. So that there is no evasion of this difficulty, except by so robbing God of His

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 245

perfections as practically to dethrone Him. It is not Calvinism which creates it ; but the simple existence of sin and misery, destined never to be wholly extinguished, in the government of an almighty and omniscient God. He who thinks he can master it by his theory, only displays his folly.

3. It is objected that God's goodness and sincerity in the offer of the Gospel to all is inconsistent with How reconciled with predestination. It is urged: God savs He Gospel otters to all .' f, , , , . , ° , , r 1 • ' 1

hath no pleasure m the death 01 hun that

dieth ;" that He would have all men to be saved ; and that Christ declared His wish to save reprobate Jerusalem. Now, how can these things, and His universal offer: "Whosoever will, let him come," consist with the fixed determination that the non-elect shall never be saved ? I reply, that this difficulty (which cannot be wholly solved) is not generated by predesti- nation, but lies equally against any other theory which leaves God His divine attributes. Let one take this set of facts. Here is a company of sinners ; God could convert all by the same powers by which He converts one. He offers His salva- tion to all, and assures them of His general benevolence. He knows perfectly that some will neglect the offer ; and yet, so knowing, He intentionally refrains from exerting those powers, to overrule their reluctance, which He is able to exert if He chose. This is but a statement of stubborn facts ; it cannot be evaded without impugning the omniscience, or omnipotence of God, or both. Yet, see if the whole difficulty is not involved in it. Every evangelical Christian, therefore, is just as much interested in seeking the solution of this difficulty as the Cal- vinist. And it is to be sought in the following brief sugges- tions. God's concern in the transgression and impenitence of those whom He suffers to neglect His warnings and invitations, is only permissive. He merely leaves men to their own sinful choice. His invitations are always impliedly, or explicitly con- ditional ; suspended on the sinner's turning. He has never said that He desires the salvation of a sinner as impenitent; He only says, if the sinner will turn, he is welcome to salvation. And this is always literally true ; were it in the line of possi- iDilities that one non-elect should turn, he would find it true in his case. All, therefore, that we have to reconcile is these three facts ; that God should see a reason why it is not proper, in certain cases, to put forth His almighty grace to overcome a .sinner's reluctance ; and yet that He should be able to do it if He chose ; and yet should be benevolent and pitiful towards all His creatures. Now God says in His Word that He does compassionate lost sinners. He says that He could save if He pleased. His word and providence both show us that some are permitted to be lost. In a wise and good man, we can easily understand how a power to pardon, a sincere compassion for 3. guilty criminal, and yet a fixed purpose to punish, could co-

246 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

exist; the power and compassion being overruled by His wis- dom. Why may not something analogous take place in God, according to His immutable nature? Is it said: such an explanation implies a struggle in the breast between competing considerations, inconsistent with God's calm blessedness? I reply, God's revelations of His wrath, love, pity, repentance, &c., are all anthropopathic, and the difficulty is no greater here, than in all these cases. Or is it said, that there can be nothing except a lack of will, or a lack of power to make the sinner both holy and happy? I answer: it is exceeding pre- sumption to suppose that, because we do not see such a cause, none can be known to God !

" The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care." and itVSt.^' '''""'''' In preaching it, that proportion should be observed, which obtains in the Bible ; and no polemical zeal against the impugners of the doctrine ought to tempt the minister to obtrude it more often. To press it prom- inently on anxious inquirers, or on those already confused by cavils of heretics or Satanic suggestions, or to urge it upon one inclined to skepticism, or one devoid of sufficient Christian knowledge, experience and humility, is unsuitable and impru- dent. And when taught, it should be in the mode which usually prevails in Scripture, viz : a posteriori, as inferred from its result, effectual calling.

But when thus taught, the doctrine of predestination is full of edification. It gives ground for humility, because it leaves man no ground for claiming any of the credit of either origin- ating or carrying on his salvation. It lays a foundation for confident hope ; because it shows that " the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It should open the fountains of love and gratitude, because it shows the undeserved and eternal love of God for the undeserving. See here an eloquent passage in Witsius, b. 3, chap. 4, § 30. We should learn to teach and to view the doctrine, not from an exclusive, but from an inclusive point of view. It is sin which shuts out from the favour of God, and which ruins. It is God's decree which calls back, and repairs and saves all who are saved. Wliatever of sin, of guilt, of misery, of despair the universe exhibits, arises wholly out of man's and Satan's transgression. What- ever of redemption, of hope, of comfort, of holiness and of bliss alleviates this sad panorama, all this proceeds from the decree of God. The decree is the fountain of universal benev- olence ; voluntary sin is the fountain of woe. Shall the fountain of mercy be maligned because, although it emits all the happi- ness in the universe, it has a limit to its streams?

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. xii: 2
  2. Eph. i: 4
  3. Acts v: 31
  4. 2 Pet. i: 3

SYLLABUS

1. What is the usage and meaning of the word create in Scripture ? Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. i. Lexicons. Dick, Lect. 37.

2. How else have philosophers accounted for the existence of the universe, ex- cept by a creation out of nothing ?

Turrettin, ubi supra. Dick, as above. Brucher's Hist, of Phil. British Encyclopiedia, articles "Atomic Philosophy," and " Platonism."

3. Prove that God created the world out of nothing; first from Scripture, and second, from Reason and the objections to the eternity of the Universe and matter.

Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 3. Dr. S. Clarke, Discourses of Being, &c., of God. Dick, as above. Hodge, Theology, Vol. i, pp. 558, &c. Thornwell, Lect. 9, pp. 206-7. Christlieb, Mod. Doubt and Chr. Behef, Lect. 3.

4. Can a creature receive the power of creating, by delegation from God ? Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 2.

5. What was each day's work of creation, in the Mosaic week ?

Genesis, ch. i. Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 5, 6. On this and the previous ques- tions, see Knapp's Chr. Theol., Art. v, | 45 to 50.

6. What are the theories of modern Geologists concerning the age of the earth ? Their grounds, and the several modes proposed for reconciling them with the Mosaic history ?

Hitchcock's Rehg. and Geology. Univ. Lectures, Dr. Lewis Green. Hugh Miller, Tesdmony of the Rocks. Tayler Lewis' Symbol Days. David N. Lord on Geol. Sir Charles Lyell's System of Geol. Dt. Gerald Molloy. Wiseman's Lects., &c.

HE words rendered to create, cannot be considered, in

their etymology and usage, very distinctive of the nature

of the act. The authorities make ^5*]2 I. Terms defined. T 7

mean " to cut or carve," primarily, (from the idea of splitting off parts, or separation) hence " to fashion," then to " create ;" and thence the more derivative sense of pro- ducing or generating, regenerating the heart, &c. The verb 7\\D'^ carries, according to the authorities, more of the sense

T

of the Greek verb rtocico — "to do or to make ," and is used for fashioning, manufacturing, doing (as a function or business), acquiring property, &c. The verb "^y seems to me to carry

more distinctively the idea of fashioning out of pre-existent materials, as a potter ("l!^!'') out of clay, &c. And it will be

observed that wherever it is applied to making man or animals in Gen., the material out of which, is mentioned or implied, as ii : 7. God fashioned man ("lU"'^!) out of the dust of the

earth. The word usually employed from Greek in Septuagint and New Testament to express the idea of creating, as distin- guished from begetting or generating is xzi^co. This, author- ities say, means primarily to "found," or "build," and hence, "to make," "create."

It will be clearly seen hence, that the nature of the creative

247

248 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

act is but faintly defined by the mere force <,f';o?hTifg" "" °"' °^ the words. Yet Scripture does not lack

passages, which explicitly teach, that God produced the whole Universe out of nothing by His almighty power ; i. e., that His first work of creation did not consist merely of fashioning materials already existent, but of bring- ing all substance, except His own, out of non-existence into existence. How impossible this seemed to the ancient mind appears from this fact, that the opposite was regarded as an axiom {e.r iiihilo nihil fit) and lay as such at the basis of every system of human device. So that it was from an accurate knowledge, that the author of Hebrews says (xi : 3,) that the true doctrine of creation was purely one of faith. And this is our most emphatic proof text. We may add to it Rom. iv : 17; perhaps i Cor. i : 28 ; 2 Cor. iv : 6; Acts xvii : 28 ; Col. i : 17. The same meaning may be fairly argued for the word ^^12, Gen. i : I, from the fact that its sense there is absolutely

T T ■'

unqualified or limited by any previous proposition, or reference to any material, and also from the second verse. The work of the first verse expressed by ^")2. left the earth a chaos.

Therefore it cannot contain the idea of fashioning, so that if you refuse to it the sense of an absolute production out of nothing, you seem to leave it no meaning whatever. This truth also appears very strongly, from the contrast which is so often run by Scripture between God's eternity and the tempo- ral nature of the creation. See Ps. xc : 2 ; Matt, xxv : 34 ; 2 Tim. i : 9; Rev. i : 11 ; and especially Prov. viii : 23-26, "nor the highest part of the dust of the world." It is hard to see how it could be more strongly asserted, that not only was the organization, but the very material of the world as yet all non-existent. •

How almighty power brings substance into existence from

^, . . , , , absolute non-entity, our minds may not be

1 his inscrutable, but ui ^ • t m 1

not impossible. 'a^v>\Q to conceive. i^ike so many other

questions of ontology, it is too impalpable for

the grasp of our understandings. As we have seen, the mind

neither sees nor conceives substance, not even material ; but

only its attributes ; only, it is intuitively impelled to refer those

attributes (of which alone it has perception, to some substratum

as the substance in which they inhere. The entity itself being

mysterious, it need not surprise us to find that its rise out of

non-entity is so. It is objected that a creation out of nothing is

a contradiction, because it makes nothing a material to act on,

and thus, an existence. We reply that this is a mere play upon

the meaning of a preposition ; We do not mean that " nothing "

is a material out of which existences are fashioned ; but the

term from which an existence absolutely begins. God created

a world where nothing was before. Is it objected that, in all

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 249

our experiental knowledge of causation, the object to receive, is as necessary as the agent to emit, power? True; but our knowledge of power is not an experimental idea, but an intuitive, rational notion ; and in the most ordinary effect which we witness, is as really inscrutable to our perception and imagina- tion, as the causation of a totally new existence. The latter is beyond our finite powers ; we are certainly incompetent to say that it is beyond the reach of infinite power. So, all the transcendental difficulties which Pantheists make against a creation ex nihilo, have this common vice : They are attempts to bring down to our conceptual forms of thought the relations of the infinite, which inevitably transcend them.

3. There are three other schemes which offer us an alternative to this of an absolute creation ; that of the atomic philosophers, that of the Platonists, and that of the Pantheists.

The Atomic theory of the Universe, advanced by Demo- . critus and Leucippus, adopted by Epicurus,

utation!^'^ *^°'^' ^"^ ' ^^^ greatly opposed by Socrates and the Platonists, might be so stated, if freed from the mechanical technicalities of the Greeks, as to embrace as few absurdities as perhaps any possible anti-Christian system. That is, it has the merit of atheism, of making two or three gigantic falsehoods, assumed at the outset, supersede a whole train of minor absurdities. Grant, say the atomists, the eternal existence of matter, in the state of ultimate atoms, endued by the necessity of nature, with these three eternal attributes, motion, a perpetual appetency to aggregation, and diversity of ultimate form, and you have all that is necessary, to account for universal organization. Now, without dwelling on the metaphysical objection (whose soundness is questionable) that necessary existence is inconsistent with diversity of form, these obvious reasons show that the postulates are not only unproved (proof I have never seen attempted) but impossible. First : motion is not a necessary attribute of matter: but on the contrary, it is indifferent to a state of rest or motion, requiring power to cause it to pass out of either state into the opposite. Second : Intelligent contrivance could never be generated by mere necessary, mechanical aggregations of material atoms ; but remains still an effect without a cause. Third : the mater- ialistic account of human and other spirits, which this theory gives, is impossible.

The Pantheistic theory has been already refuted, as space would allows, in Lect. ii, which see. The ReSkin. ^''''^"'^ Platonic is certainly attended with fewest absurdities, and best satisfied the de- mands of thinking minds not possessed of Revelation. Starting with the maxim ex niJiilo nihil fit, it supposes two eternal substances, the sources of all that exists ; the spiritual God, and chaotic matter ; the spirits of demi-gods, and men

250 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

being emanations of the former, and the material universe having been fashioned out of the latter, in time, through the agency of the Noo:; or JfjUtouyfo:;. The usual arguments against the eterntiy of the unorganized matter of the universe, have been weighed in the Second Lecture, and many of them found wanting, (which see). I now aim only to add to what is there said, such considerations as human reason seems able to advance solidly against this doctrine. You will remember that I there argued, ist: From the testimony of the human race itself, and 2d, from the recency of population, history, traditions,, arts, &c., on the earth, against the eternity of its organized state. To this we may add : 3d. If matter unorganized was eternal, it must have been self-existent, and hence, whatever attributes it had from eternity must have been absolutely necessary. Hence there was a necessary limitation on the power of God, in working with such a material ; and it may be that He did not make what He would have preferred to make, but only did the best He could under the circumstances. (Indeed, the Platonist, knowing nothing of the doctrine of a fall in Adam, accounted for all the disorders and defects in the world, by the refractory nature of eternal matter. The creator excuses himself as a smith does, who, though thorougly skillful, produces an imperfect edge-tool, because he had nothing but bad steel). But, if this is so, then : (a) God as Creator is not infinite ; there are limitations upon His powers, as necessary and eternal as His own attributes. And these limits obstruct His providential action as they did His creative. Hence, He is no longer an object of religious trust, and perfect confidence. He is only an able artificer, (b) Then, also, God's knowledge of this self-existent matter, external to Himself, was experimen- tally gained ; and the doctrine of His omniscience is fatally vitiated. 4th. The elementary properties of matter, which on this theory, must have been eternal and necessary, have an adaptation to God's purposes in creation, that displays intelligent contrivance, just as clearly as any organized thing can. But matter is unintelligent ; this design must have had a cause. 5th. The production of spiritual substance out of nothing is, we presume, just as hard to account for as material substance. Hence, if an instance of the former is presented, the doctrine of the eternity of the Universe may as well be surrendered. But our souls each present such an instance. No particle of evidence exists from consciousness or recollection, that they pre-existed, and everything is against the notion that they are scintillations of God' substance. They began to exist : at least man has no knowledge whatever of any other origin : and by the rule : De ignotis idem quasi de 7ton existentibus, any other origin is out of the debate. They were produced out of nothing. In conclusion, it may be said that, if the idea of the production of something out of nothing is found to be not

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 25 1

impossible, as we think, when we have supposed an Almighty Creator, we have cause enough to account for everything, and it is unnecessary to suppose another.

The question whether a creature can receive, if God choose,

delegated power to create, has been agitated he\n%dTcZtr between the Orthodox and some of the

Romanists, (who would fain introduce a plea for the making of a Saviour by the priest, in the pretended miracle of the mass) and the old Arians and Socinians, who would thus evade the argument for Christ's proper divinity, irom the evident ascription to Him of works of creation. We believe not only that the noblest of finite creatures is incapable of exercising creative power proper, of his own motion ; but of receiving it by delegation from God, so that the latter is one of those natural impossibles which it would argue imper- fection in omnipotence to be capable of doing.

(a) God, in a multitude of places, claims creation as His characteristic work, by which His Godhead is manifested, and His superiority shown to all false gods and idols ; Is. xliv ; 7, 24 ; xl: 12, 13, 18, 28 ; Job ix: 8; Jer. x : 11, 12 ; Is. xxxvii : 16; Ps. xcvi : 5. Thus Creator comes to be one of God's names.

(b) To bring anything, however small, out of non-existence is so far above man's capabilities, that he cannot even conceive how it can be done. In order that a work may be conceivable or feasible for uS, it must have subject and agent. Man has no faculty which can be directed upon non-entity, in any way, to bring anything out of it. Indeed, however small the thing thus- produced out of nothing, there is an exertion of infinite power. The distance to be passed over between the two is a fathomless gulf to every finite mind.

(c.) To make one thing, however limited, might require in- finite powers of understanding. For however simple, a number of the laws of nature would be involved in its structure ; and the successful construction would demand a perfect acquaint- ance with those laws, at least, in their infinite particularity, and in all their possible combinations, and with the substance as well as attributes. Consider any of the constructions of man's shaping and joining materials God has given him, and this will be found true. The working of miracles by prophets, apostles,, &c., offers no instance to the contrary, because it is really God who works the miracle, and the human agent only announces, and appeals to the interposition of divine power. See Acts iii : 1 2. If we suppose that Gen. i: i, describes a previous pro- duction in a time left indefinite, of the heavens 5. The Creative Week. ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^f ^^^ ^^^.^1^^ ^^^^^ the WOrk of

the first of the six days will be the production of light. It may seem unreasonable at the first glance, that light should be created, and should make three days before the sun, its great fountain at present, was formed. But all the researches of

252 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

modem optics go more and more to overthrow the behef that Hght is a substantive emanation from the sun. What it is,_ whether a substance, or an affection of other substance, is still unknown. Hence it cannot be held unreasonable, that it should have existed before the sun ; nor that God should have regulated it in alternations of day and night. On the second day the atmos- phere seems to have been created, (the expanse) or else disen- gaged from chaos, and assigned its place around the surface of the earth. This, by sustaining the clouds, separated the waters from the waters. The work of the third day was to separate the terrestrial waters from the dry ground, to assign each their bounds, and to stock the vegetable kingdom with its genera of trees and plants. The fourth day was occupied with the cre- ation, or else the assignment to their present functions, of sun, moon and stars. And henceforth these became the chief depositories, or else propagators, of natural light. The fifth day witnessed the creation of all oviparous animals, including the three classes of fishes, reptiles and birds. The sixth day God created the terrestrial animals of the higher order, now known as mammalia, and man. His crowning work.

In our age, as you are aware, modern geologists teach, with great unanimity, that the state of the struc- ern%Jl'g;%lred: ^ures which compose the earth's crust shows it to be vastly more than 6,000 years old. To explain this supposed evidence to you, I may take for granted your acquaintance with the classes into which they distribute the rocks and soils that form the earth, so far as man has pierced it. Lowest in order, and earliest in age, are the azoic rocks, many of them crystalline in texture, and all devoid of fossils. Above them are rocks, by the older geologists termed secondar}^ and tertiary, but now termed palaeozoic, incsozoic, and caijiozoic. Above them are alluvia, the more recent of which contain remains of existing genera. Only the barest outline of their classification is necessary' for our purpose. Now, the theory of the geologists is, that the materials of the stratified rocks were derived, by disintegration, from masses older than themselves ; and that all this material has been re-arranged by natural pro- cesses of deposition, since the creation of our globe. And hence, that creation must have been thousands of ages before Adam, "(a.) Because the cr\'stalline rocks, which are supposed to have furnished the material for all the later, seemed to have resulted from a gradual cooling, and are very hard, disinte- grating very slowly, (b.) The made-rocks and earths are very abundant, giving an average thickness of from six to ten miles. Hence a very great time was requisite to disintegrate so much hard material, (c.) The position of these made strata or layers, indicates long series of changes, since they were deposited, as upheavals, dislocations, depressions, subsequent re-dissolvings.

(d.) They contain 30,000 species and more, of fossil remains

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 255

of animal life, besides vegetable ; of which, not only are whole genera now extinct, but were wholly extinct ages before another cluster of genera were first created ; which are now extinct also. And the vast quantities of these fossils, as shells in some lime- stone, remains of vegetation in vast coal beds, &c., &c., point to a long time, for their gradual accumulation.

(f.) There are no human fossils found with these remains of earlier life, whence they were pre-Adamite.

Last. Since the last great geologic changes in the strata of the made rocks, changes have been produced in them by natural and gradual causes, which could not have been made in 6,000 years, as whole deltas of alluvial mud deposited, e. g.. Louisiana, deep channels dug out by rivers, as Niagara from Lake Ontario to the falls, water worn caves in the coast lines, and former coast lines of countries, e. g., Great Britain, which are rock-bound.

Modern divines, usually yield this as a demonstration : and Attempts to recon- offer one of two solutions to rescue Moses cile this with Moses, from the appearance of mistake, i. Drs. 1st. Scheme. p^g Smith, Chalmers, Hitchcock, Hodge,

&c., suppose Gen. i: i and 2, ist clause, to describe God's primeval, creative act ; which may have been separated by thousands of ages from Adam's day ; and in that vast interval^ occurred all those successive changes, which geologists describe as pre-Adamite, and then lived and died all those extinct genera of animals and vegetables. The scene had been closed, per- haps ages before, by changes which left the earth's surface void, for.-iless and dark. But all this Moses passes over with only one word ; because the objects of a religious revelation to man were not concerned with it. The second verse only describes how God took the earth in hand, at this stage, and in six days gave it the order, the genera of plants and animals, and last, the human race, which now possesses it.

The geological objections which Hugh Miller, its ablest Christian assailant, brings, may be all summed up in this : That the fossils show there was not such a clean cutting off of all the genera of plants and animals at the close of the pre-Adamite period, and re-stocking of the earth with the existing genera ; because many of the existing co-exist with the prevalent pleio- cene genera, in the tertiary rocks, and many of those again, with the older genera, in the palaeozoic rocks. This does not seejn at all conclusive, because it may have suited God, at the close of the pre-Adamite period, to suffer the extinction of all, and then to create, along with the totally different new genera, some bearing so close a likeness to some extinct genera, as to be indistinguishable by their fossils. '

The exegetical objections are chiefly these, i. That the

sun, moon and light were only created at

Exegetical difficulties, ^^le Adamic period. Without these there

^54 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

could have been neither vegetable nor animal life before. 2. We seem to learn from Gen. i : 31; iii: 17-19; Rom. v: 12; viii : 19-22, that all animal suffering and death came upon our earth as a punishment for man's sin ; which our conceptions of the justice and benevolence of God seem to confirm. To the 1st the common answer is, that the chaotic condition into which the earth had fallen just before the Adamic period, had prob- ably shut out all influences of the heavenly bodies ; and that the making of sun, moon, &c., and ordaining them for lights, &c., probably only means their apparent creation, i. e., their re- introduction to the earth. To the 2d it is replied, that the proper application of the texts attributing all terrestrial dis- order and suffering to man's fall, is only to the earth as cotem- porary with man ; and that we are too ignorant of God's plan, and of what sin of rational free agents may, or may not have occurred on the pre-Adamite earth, to dogmatize about it. These replies seem plausible, and may be tenable. This mode of reconciling geology to Moses, is certainly the least objection- able, and most respectable.

The second mode of reconciliation, now made most fashion-

^ . able by H. Miller, Tayler Lewis, &c., sup-

The theory of six sym- '■

bolic days. poses that the word Qlf day, in the account

of creation, does not mean a natural day of 24 hours, but is symbolical of a vast period ; during which God was, by natural laws, carrying on changes in the earth's surface and its inhabi- tants. And they regard the passage as an account of a sort of symbolic vision, in which God gave Moses a picture, in six tableaux, of these six vast series of geologic and creative changes : so that the language is, to use Dr. Kurtz' (of Dorpat,) fantastic idea, a sort of prophecy of the past, and is to be understood according to the laws of prophetic symbols. This they confirm by saying that Moses makes three days before he has any sun or moon to make them : that in Gen. ii : 4, the word is used for something other than a natural day ; and that it is often used in Hebrew as a general and undefined term for season or period. Miller also argues, that geology reveals the same succession of fossils which Moses describes ; first plants, then monstrous fishes and reptiles and birds, (all oviparous), then quadrupeds and mammalia, and last, man.

The following objections lie against this scheme. Geolo- Objections. ^^^^^ ^''^ "°^ agreed that the succession of

fossils is that which its advocates assert. Some of the weightest authorities declare that plants (assigned by this scheme to the third day, and to the earliest production of organic things) are not the earliest fossils. Crustaceous, and even vertebrate animals precede the plants. Second. The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical ; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 25$

their obvious sense. The advocates of the symboHc days (as Dr. G. Molloy) attach much importance to their claim that theirs is not an afterthought, suggested by geologic difficulties, but that the exposition was advanced by many of the ' Fathers '. After listening to their citations, we are constrained to reply that the vague suggestions of the different Fathers do not yield them any support, because they do not adopt their theory of explanation. Third. The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation, by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, " morning and evening." Is the attempt made to break the force of this, by reminding us, that the "evening and the morning" do not make up the whole of the civic. day of twenty-four hours ; and that the words are different from those just before, and commonly afterwards employed to denote the " day " and the " night," which together make up the natural day? We reply: it is true, morning and evening do not literally fill the twenty- four hours. But these epochs mark the beginnings of the two seasons, day and night, which do fill the twenty-four hours. And it is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second "day"; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs : — one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day ; for the intervening hours have made just that time. Fourth. In Gen. ii : 2, 3; Exod. xx:ii, God's creating the world and its creatures in six days, and resting the seventh, is given as the ground of His sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day ; why not the former ? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak. Fifth. It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scrip- tures as well as the Hebrew (as in our commmon speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly deriva- tive. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context. Last. The attributing of the changes ascribed to each day by Moses, to the slow operation of natural causes, as Miller's theory does, tramples upon the proper scope of the passage, and the meaning of the word " create ;" which teach us this very truth especially ; that these things were not brought about by natural law at all, but by a super- natural divine exertion, directly opposed thereto See Gen. ii : 5. If Moses does not here mean to teach us that in the time named by the six " days " (whatever it may be), God was employed in miraculously creating and not naturally "growing "

256 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

a world, I see not how language can be construed. This decisive difficulty is wholly separate from the questions about the much debated word, " day," in this passage.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Job ix: 8
  2. Rom. v: 12

APPENDIX

Without presuming to teach technical geology (for which I profess no qualification ; and which lies, as I conceive, wholly outside the functions of the Church teacher), I wish, in dismiss- ing this subject, to give you some cautions and instructions touching its relations with our revealed science.

There must always be a legitimate reason for Church teachers adverting to this subject ; because

1. This subject must 1 r. i. j ■ • i. 11 i-i

concern Theologians, geology, as often asserted, IS virtually a theory of cosmogony, and cosmogony is but the doc- trine of creation, which is one of the modes by which God reveals Himself to man, and one of the prime articles of every revealed theology. Were not all the ancient cosmogonies but natural theologies ? Not a few modern geologists resent the animadversix)ns of theologians, as of an incompetent class,, impertinent and ignorant. Now I very freely grant that it is a very naughty thing for a parson, or a geologist, to profess to- know what he does not know. But all logic is but logic ; and after the experts in a special science have explained their prem- ises in their chosen way, it is simply absurd to forbid any other class of educated men to understand and judge their deductions. What else was the object of their publications? Or, do they intend to practice that simple dogmatism, which in us religious teachers, they would so spurn ? Surely when geologists cur- rently teach their systems to boys in colleges, it is too late for them to refuse the inspection of an educated class of men ! When Mr. Hugh Miller undertook, by one night's lecture, to convince a crowd of London mechanics of his pet theory of the seven geologic ages, it is too late to refuse the criticism of theologians trained in philosophy ?

I would beg you to notice how distinctly either of the cur-

2. Westminster rent theories contradicts the standards of our Confession incoasistent Churcli. See Conf. of Faith, ch. iv, §1. ^'^^^" Larger Cat., que. 15, 120. Our Confession is not inspired ; and if untrue, it should be refuted. But if your minds are made up to adopt either of these theories, then it seems to me that common honesty requires of you two things ; to advertise your Presbyteries, when you apply for license and ordination, of your disbelief of these articles ; that they may judge whether they are essential to our system of doctrine ; and second ; to use your legitimate influences as soon as you become church rulers, to have these articles expunged from our standards as false.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 25/

Let me urge upon you a wiser attitude and temper towards

the new science, than many have shown, ^. Deliberation en- .„ .1 • • , o ■, ,

JQJngj) among the mmistry. bome have shown a

jealousy and uneasiness, unworthy of the stable dignity of the cause of inspiration. These apparent diffi- culties of geology are just such as science has often paraded against the Bible ; but God's word has stood firm, and every true advance of science has only redounded to its honour. Christians, therefore, can afford to bear these seeming assaults with exceeding coolness. Other pretended theologians have been seen advancing, and then as easily retracting, novel schemes of exegesis, to suit new geologic hypotheses. The Bible has often had cause here to cry, " Save me from my friends." Scarcely has the theologian announced himself as sure of his discovery that this is the correct way to adjust Reve- lation to the prevalent hypotheses of the geologists, when these mutable gentlemen change their hypothesis. The obsequious divine exclaims : " Well, I was in error then ; but now I have certainly the right exposition to reconcile Moses to the geolo- gists." And again the fickle science changes its ground. What can be more degrading to the authority of Revelation ! As remarked in a previous lecture, unless the Bible has its own ascertainable and certain law of exposition, it cannot be a rule of faith ; our religion is but rationalism. I repeat, if any part of the Bible must wait to have its real meaning imposed upon it by another, and a human science, that part is at least mean- ingless and worthless to our souls. It must expound itself inde- pendently ; making other sciences ancillary, and not dominant over it.

It should be freely conceded that it was not God's purpose, ■D T ^ .in sriving: the Bible, to foreshadow the scien-

4. ropular terms to ._ =>=!,- ' , , y,

be expected ; in Bible, tific rationale o\ natural phenomena. Its Reasons. But not ap- object is theological. And the Bible is, in plicable to cosmogony, ^j^-^ ^^^^^^^^ ^ strictly practical book. Hence, it properly speaks of those phenomena as they appear, and uses the popular phrases, " sun rises," " sun sets," "sun stood still," etc., just as any other than a pedantic astronomer would, when not expressly teaching astronomy. Hence, we admit, that the attempt made by Rome and the Reformers to array the Bible against the Copernican System was simply foolish. The Bible only professed to speak of the apparent phase of the facts ; the theory of the astronomer professed to give the non-apparent, scientific mechanism of the facts. So far as geology does the analogous thing, we should have no quarrel with it. But how far does this concession go ? When Moses seems to say that God created the world and its inhabitants out of nothing, are we at liberty to treat him as we do Joshua, when he speaks of the sun as standing still ? I think not. First: Moses' reference to the facts of creation is not, like Joshua's reference to the 17*

258 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

astronomical event, merely incidental to a narrative of human history, but is a statement of what is as much a theological doc- trine as a natural fact, introduced by him for its own theological purpose. Second : Joshua's language is defended, as being true to the apparent phase of the event. But creation had no apparent phase ; for the simple reason that it had no human spectators. There is no popular language about world-making, conformed to the seeming phenomenon, as we have about the moving and setting suns which we daily seem to behold ; for none of us, of any generation, have witnessed the exterior appearances of world-making. Hence, I must believe that we are not authorized to class the declarations of Moses here, with those of these oft-cited passages.

It is an all-important point that, if debate arises between a

geologic hypothesis and the fair and natural

5 Burden of proof n-,eaning of the Bible touching cosmogony,

restb on Geologists. » . 111 re

the geologist must bear the burden 01 proof.

We are entitled to claim this, because the inspiration of the Scriptures is in prior possession of the field, in virtue of its own independent, historical, prophetic, internal and spiritual eviden- ces, and of the immense and irreparable stake which every awakened soul has in its truth. Hence, the geologist does not dislodge the Bible, until he has constructed his own independ- ent, and exclusive, and demonstrative evidence that his hypoth- esis must be the true one, and the only true one. Has the science ever done this ? This logical obligation geologists perpetually forget. They perpetually substitute a " may be" for a " must be." As soon as they hit upon a hypothesis which, it appears, may satisfy the known facts, they leap to the conclusion that it is the obviously, the only true one. But now, our position is not approached until such a complete, and exclu- sive demonstration is made. We are under no obligation, in order to defend ourselves, to substantiate another hypothesis by geologic reasoning; our defence is complete, when we show by such argument that their hypothesis comes short of an exclusive and perfect demonstration. It requires, as yet, little knowledge to show this ; when the leading geologists are still differing be- tween themselves, touching the igneous, the aqueous, the gradual and the sudden systems ; when effects are so hastily and confi- dently ascribed to one species of natural agency, which may, very possibly, have been effected by it, or by one of several other possible agencies ; when we see the greatest names assuming as premises for important deductions, statements which are corrected by the practical observation of plain men ; from the oversight of important questions as to the consistency and feasibility of their theories of cosmogony, with observed facts; and last, from the truth that the most truly scientific are most cautious in asserting any such scheme with confidence.

I have reserved the most vital point to the last. It is this :

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 259

6. Usual inference of The structures of nature around us cannot cause from observed present by their traits of naturalness, a uni- resemblances. versally demonstrative proof of a natural, as

against a supernatural origin, upon any sound, theistic theory. Because, supposing a Creator, originating any structures or creatures supernaturally. He must also have conferred on His first things traits of naturalness. Hence, should it be found that the Creator has uttered His testimony to the supernatural origin of any observed things, that testimony cuts across and supersedes all the arguments a posteriori, from natural analogies to a natural origin. Thus, many geologists, seeing that sedi- mentary action by water now produces some stratified rocks, claim that they are entitled, by the similarity of effects, to ascribe all stratified rocks to sedimentary action. This, they say, is but a fair application of the axiom, that " like causes produce like effects," v.'hich is the very corner-stone of all induc- tive science. But the real proposition they employ is the con- verse of this: that like effects imply like causes. Now, first: it is trite as true, that the proof of a proposition does not prove its converse. Second : the theist has expressly admitted another cause, namely, an infinite, personal Creator, confessedly competent to any effect He may choose to create. Hence, all theists are compelled to admit that the natural, a posteriori argument cannot universally hold, as to the origin of beings. Once admit a Creator, and that argument remains, in every case where the Creator's absence is not proved by some positive evidence other than physical, the invalid species of induction, which Bacon exploded under the name of i)iductio emimerationis simplicis. Nov. Organum, Lib. i, § 105. '' Inductio enim, quee procedit per etmineratioiicui simplicem, res piierilis est, et precario concludit, et perictilo ey.po7iitnr ab i?istantia contradictoria," &c. In the case under discussion, any natural structure originated by the Creator, would be such a contradictory instance. Unless then the divine cause is excluded by some other than physical evidence, such induction can never be universally valid. Third : A wise God always has some " final cause," guiding His action. We may not be presumptuous in surmis- ing, in every case, what His final cause was; but when His own subsequent action has disclosed it, we are on safe ground ; we may assuredly conclude that the use to which He has actually put a given thing is the use for which He designed it. When, therefore, we see Him subjecting all structures to natural law, we know that those which He himself created, He designed to subject to such law. Then, He must have created them as nat- ural as though their origin also had been from nature. Fourth : To the theist, this argument is especially clear as to living, organized creatures. Supposing a Creator, the first of each species must have received from the supernatural, creative hand, every trait of naturalness ; else it could not have fulfilled

260 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the end for which it was made ; to be the parent of a species. What are the attributes connoted by the name of any species ? Natural History answers : they are precisely those regularly transmitted by natural generation.. Then, in order to be the parent of a natural species, the first thing, while supernatural in origin, must have been thoroughly natural in all essential traits. Fifth : If we deny this, we must assign a natural parent before the first-created parent of each species of generated organisms. Thus we should be involved in a multitude of infinite series, without cause external to themselves ; a result which science herself has repudiated, as an impossible absurdity. Suppose then, that by some chance, a physicist should examine the very remains of one of those organisms which God creatively pro- duced, as a bone of Adam's body ; he would, of course, find in it the usual traits of naturalness. Yet he could not thence infer for this thing a natural origin ; since, according to the sup- posed case, it was a first thing. Hence, it is concluded with mathematical rigidity, that when we grant an omnipotent Crea- tor anywhere in the past, the argument from naturalness of traits to a natural origin ceases to be universally conclusive.

This case is exactly illustrated by what lawyers term

"circumstantial evidence" in a court of jus-

lUustrated by Cir- ^j^g_ jj^^ science of law, charged with the

cumstantial Evidence. , . r i-r 1111 1

solemn issues of life and death, has exactly defined the proper rules for this species of evidence. Before a man can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence, the prose- cution must show that their hypothesis of his guilt not only may satisfy all the circumstances known, but that it is the only possible hypothesis. And the enlightened judge will rule, that the defence are entitled to test that fact even by their imagina- tions. If they can suppose or invent another hypothesis, unsupported by a single positive proof, that demonstrates the fact, that the hypothesis of guilt is not the only possible one, the accused must be discharged. But let us suppose that, just when the circumstantial evidence of guilt seemed com- plete, an eye-witness is adduced, who swears that he saw the crime perpetrated by another. Let us suppose that other agent was naturally competent to the act. Then the judge will rule, that the whole farther discussion must turn on the consistency and credibility of that witness. He will say to the accusers : that if they have any valid way to impugn the wit- ness' competency, or credibility, they may do so ; otherwise, in presence of his positive evidence, their circumstantial proof, in spite of all its ingenuity and plausibility, is utterly broken down. Now the a posteriori argument of the geologists is such a circumstantial proof. The Bible is the parole-witness ; if its competency and trustworthiness stand, their case has collapsed before it.

Again : why should the Theistic philosopher desire to push

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 26 1

back the creative act of God to the remotest possible age, and reduce His agency to the least possible mmiinum, as is continu- ally done in these speculations? What is gained by it? In- stead of granting that God created a xoafio::, a world, some strive continually to show that He created only the rude germs of a world, ascribing as little as possible to God, and as much as possible to natural law. Cni bono ; if you are not hankering after Atheism ? Is a completed result any harder for infinite powers than a germinal one ? What is natural law ; and what its source ? It originated in the creative power, and is main- tained, energized, and regulated by the perpetual providence of God. Do you crave to push God away, as far as possible ? It does not help you to say, natural law directed the formation of this mass of marble, instead of supernatural creation ; for God is as near and as infinite in His common, natural, as in His first, supernatural working.

But if you must persist in recognizing nothing but natural

forces, wherever you see a natural analogy, I Illustrated by Nebu- ^j^ gj^^^^ ^j^^^ j^. ^^ju j^^^ j y^^,^ jf ^^^ ^^^

i3.r xTypOLricsis- , _ - /■ i i i

consistent, no where short oi absolute athe- ism. Suppose that nebular theory of the origin of the solar system were true, which the anti-Christian, La Place, is said to have suggested as possible, and which so many of our nominal Christians have adopted, without proof, as certain. An obser- ver from some other system, fully imbued with the principles of modern science, comes to inspect, at the stage that he finds only a vast mass of incandescent vapor, rotating from west to east around an axis of motion. If he uses the confident logic of our geologists, he must reason thus : " Matter is naturally inert; vionientum must come from impact ; therefore, this rotary motion which I now behold, must be the result of some prior force, either mechanical, electrical, or some other. And again, I see only vapor. Vapor implies evaporation ; and sensible heat suggests latent heat, rendered sensible either by electrical or chemical action, or compression. There must, therefore, have been a previous, different, and natural condition of this matter now volatilized, heated, and rotating. The geologists of the 19th century, therefore, will be mistaken in calling this the primitive condition of the system." Before each first, then, there must still be another first. This is, therefore, the eternity of Naturalism — it is Atheism.

This argument is usually dismissed by geologists with a Argument just, as sort of summary contempt,or with a grand out- against exclusion of cry of opposition. It does indeed cut deep ^''^^'°''- into the seductive pride of their science,

sweeping off at one blow that most fascinating region, the in- finite past. It is urged, for instance, that my argument would subvert the foundations of all natural science. They exclaim, that to concede this would be to surrender the whole organon

2t)2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of scientific discovery. I answer, no. Within the domain of

time, the known past of human history, where its testimony proves

the absence of the supernatural, the analogical induction is per-.

fectly valid. And there is the proper domain of natural

science. In that field, their method of reasoning is a useful

organon, and a legitimate ; let them use it there, to the full, for

the good of man. But in the unknown eternity of the past,

prior to human history, it has no place ; it is like the mariner's

compass carried into the stellar spaces. That compass has a

known attraction for the poles of this globe ; and therefore on

this globe, it is a valued guide. But away in the region of

Sirius, where we know not wheth-er the spheres have poles, or

whether they are magnetic, it is naught. He who should follow

it would be a madman.

Another objection, supposed to be very strong, is drawn

^ . . . ^ from the fossil remains of life. The geolo- Omection from Fos- • . , . i , i . i. - i

sils aiiswered. gists say trmmphantly, that however one

might admit my view as to the mere strata, it would be preposterous when applied to the remains of plants and animals buried in these strata, evidently alive thousands of ages ago. They assert roundly that, in order to make any application of this argument, anywhere, I shall have to hold the preposterous assertion, that all the fossil remains of vegetable and animal life, which lived during the vast, pre-Adamite ages, are mere stones, never alive : or that, in other words, we must refuse the evidence of our own senses, and suppose the Creator imposed this cheat on them. This supposed consequence we expressly repudiate. And it is very easy to show that it does not follow. In attempting to fix the relative age and order of strata and fossils, geology reasons in a circle. Sir Chas. Lyell states that a stratigraphical order has been inferred from three classes of data. i. The observed order of strata where actu- ally found in juxtaposition. 2. The kinds of organic life con- tained in the different strata. 3. The material and structure of the strata themselves. Evidently such inferences are invalid, from two grounds. First : they have not proved that the azoic stratified rocks, a large class by their own showing, may not have had an immediate, supernatural origin : for I have evinced that their naturalness of structure alone is no proof against this. If then, these stratified rocks are really as old as the igneous^ here is a huge chasm in their system. Second : They reason in a circle, in that they argue the relative oldness of certain fossils from the strata in which they are found ; and then argue the oldness of the strata from the assumed age of the fossils. For instance : they conclude that the non-fossiliferous clay- slate is a very old stratified rock, because without fossils. Again, they have concluded that some given species of fossil life is very old, because found in a stratum very near that very old slate. Then they infer that some other stratum is very old.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 263

because this fossil is found in it ! Third : Concede once (I care not where in the unknown past) an almighty Creator of infinite understanding, (as you must, if you are not an atheist,) and then both power and motive for the production of these living struc- tures at and after a supernatural creation, become infinitely pos- sible. It would be an insane pride of mind, which should con- clude that, because it could not comprehend the motive for the production, death, and entombment of all these creatures under such circumstances, therefore it cannot be reasonable for the Infinite Mind to see such a motive. So that my same formula applies here also. Once concede an Infinite Creator, and all inferences as to the necessarily natural origin of all the struc- tures seen, are fatally sundered.

In fine, if that account of the origin of the universe, which

^ . , , , theology gives us, is to be heeded at all, the

Creation had a moral r ^^ ^ ° , , 1 -i 1 • 1

gj^(j_ tollowmg appears the most philosophical con-

ception of a creation : That God, in produ- cing a world which His purposes required to pass under the immediate domain of natural laws, would produce it with just the properties which those laws perpetuate and develope. And here appears a consideration which brings theology and cos- mogony into unison. What was God's true end in the creation of a material world ? Reason and Scripture answer : To furnish a stage for the existence and action of a moral and rational crea- ture. The earth was made for man to inhabit. As the light would be but darkness, were there no eye to see, so the moral design of the world would be futile without a human mind to comprehend it, and praise its Maker. Now, such being God's end in creation, it seems much more reasonable to suppose that He would produce at once the world which He needed for His purpose, rather than spend hundreds of thousands of years in growing it.

SYLLABUS

1. Prove the existence and personality of Angels; and show the probable time of their creation.

Turrettin, Loc. vii, Qu. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7. Calvin's Inst., bk. i, ch. 14. Dick, Lect. 38. Knapp, § 58, 59.

2. What is revealed of their numbers, nature, powers and ranks ?

Turrettin, as above. Dick and Calvin, as above. Knapp, as above, and § 61.

3. In what moral state were they created, and under what covenant were they placed? How did this probation result ?

Turrettin, Loc. vii, Qu. 4, Loc. ix, Qu. 5, Loc. iv, Qu. 8, g 1-8. Dick, Lect. 39. Calvin, as above.

4. What are the offices of the good angels ? Have the saints individual guardian angels ?

Turrettin, Loc. vii, Qu. 8. Dick, Lect. 38. Calvin, as above, Knapp, g 60.

5. Prove the personality and headship of Satan, and the personal existence of his angels.

Calvin as above. Dick as above. Knapp, ^ 62, 63.

6. What do the Scriptures teach as to the powers of evil angels over natural elements and animal bodies ; over the minds and hearts of men : in demoniacal pos- sessions of ancient and modern times ; in witchcraft and magic, and of the grade of guilt of wizards, &c. ?

Turrettin, Loc. vii, Qu. 5, Loc. ix, Qu. 5, Loc. iv, Qu. 8, § 18. Calvin's Inst., bk. i, ch. 14, § 13-20. Ridgeley, Qu. 19. Knapp, g 64 to 66. Com- mentaries.

7. What personal Christian duties result from this exposure to the assaults of evil angels ?

A gainst ancient Sadducees, who taught neither resurrection,

angel, nor spirit, (Acts xxiii : 8) and made the angels only

^ , , good thoughts and motions visiting- human

I. Personality of P , j , c j 1

Angels. breasts ; and our modern hadducees, among

Rationalists, Socinians and Universalists, who teach that they are impersonations of divine energies, or of good and bad principles, or of diseases and natural influences; we prove the real, personal existence of angels thus : The Scriptures speak of them as having all the acts and properties, which can characterize real persons. They were created, by God, through the agency of the Son. Col. i : 16; Gen. ii : i ; Exod. xx:ii. Have a nature, for Christ did not assume it, Heb. ii:i6. Are holy or unholy, Rev. xiv : 10. Love and rejoice, Luke xv : 10. Desire, i Pet. i: 12. Contend, Rev. xii : 7. Worship, Heb. i : 6. Go and come, Gen. xix : i ; Luke ix : 26. Talk, Zech. i:9; Luke 1:13. Have knowledge and wis- dom, (finite) 2 Sam. xiv : 20 ; Matt, xxiv : 36. Minister in various acts. Matt, xiii : 29, 49; Luke xvi : 22 ; Acts v:i9. Dwell with saints, who resemble them, in heaven. Matt, xxii : 30, &c. If all this language was not intended to assure us of their personal existence, then there is no dependence to be placed on the word of God, or the laws of its interpretation. 264

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 265

The name angel (messenger) is indeed applied to ordinary imessengers, Job i: 14; Luke vii:24; to prophets, Is. xliiiiQ: Mai. iii : I ; to priests, Mai. ii : 7 ; to ministers of the Church, Rev. i : 20, and to the Messiah, Mai. iii : i ; Is. Ixiii : 9, &c., &c. But the other sense of personal and spiritual existences, is none the less perspicuous. They are called angels generally, because they fulfill missions for God.

The invisible and spiritual nature of these beings does not make their existence less credible, to any, poSr^ '''^^*"''' except atheists and materialists. True, we have no sensible experience of their exist- ence. Neither have we, directly, of our own souls, nor of God. If the existence of pure, finite spirits is impossible, then man cannot be immortal ; but the death of the body is the death of the being. Indeed, analogy would rather lead us to infertile ex- istence of angels, from, the almost numberless gradations of beings below man. Is all the vast gap between him and God a blank ?

To fix the date of the creation of angels is more difficult. Date unknown ^^^^ °^*^ opinion of the orthodox Reformers

was, that their creation was a part of the first day's work, (a.) Because they, being inhabitants, or hosts (see Ps. ciii : 21 ; cxlviii : 2) of heaven, were created when the "heavens were. But see Gen. i:i; ii : i ; Exod. xx:ii. (b.) Because Scripture seems to speak of all the past eternity "before the foundation of the world" as an unbroken infinity, in which nothing existed except the uncreated ; so that to speak of a being as existing before that, is in their language, to rep- resent him as uncreated. See Prov. viii : 22 ; Ps. xc : 2 ; Jno. i:i. Now I concede that the including of the angels with the heavens, under the term hosts of them, is correct. But first, the angels were certainly already in existence when this earth was begun. See Job xxxviii : 7. Second : the " beginning " in which God made the heavens and the earth. Gen. i : i, is by no means necessarily the first of the six creative days. Nor does Gen. ii:i,("Thus were finished," is an unnecessarily strong

rendering of ^^^*'1) prove it. Hence, third, it may be granted

that the beginning of the creation of God's created universe

...

may mark the dividing point between unsuccessive eternity, and successive time, and between the existence of the uncreated alone, and of the creature ; and yet it does not follow that this point was the first of the Mosaic days. Hence, it is best to say, with Calvin, that the age of the angels is unrevealed, except that they are older than the world and man.

The angels are exceedingly numerous. Gen. xxxii : 2 ;

2. Qualities of the ^^']- ^^^ = "^J u^"^" '' '' '^'^ '' ^^V ^^^"^

Angels; Incorporeal? XXVI : 5 3 ; Hcb. xii:22. Their nature is Wlience the forms of undoubtedly spiritual, belonging generally to «their apparitions ? ^^^^ dass ' of substaiices to which man's

266 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

rational soul belongs, They are called n^vjfw-a. Heb. i: 13, 14,7; Luke xx:36; xxiv : 39 ; Col. i : 16. 'This also follows from what we learn of their traits, as intelligent and voluntary- beings, as invisible, except when they assume bodies tempora- rily, as inexpressibly quick in motion ; and as penetrable, so that they occupy the same space with matter, without displac- ing or being displaced by it. Several supposed objections to their mere spirituality have been mooted. One is, that they have, as we shall see, so much physical power. The answer is, that the ultimate source of all force is in spirits ; our limbs only have it, as moved by our spirit's volitions. Another is, that if pure spirits, they would be ubiquitous, because to suppose any substance possessed of locality must imply that it is defined by extension and local limits. But extension cannot be an attribute ot spirit. I reply, that it must be possible for a spirit to have locality "definitely," though not " circumscriptively," because our conscioCisness assures us that our spirits are within the superficies of our body, in some true sense in which they are not elsewhere ; yet it is equally impossible for us to attrib- ute dimension, either to our spirits or their thoughts. And just as really as our spirits pass through space, when our bodies move, so really angels change their locality, though far more swiftly, by an actual motion, through extension; though not implying extension in the thing moved. Again, it is objected: angels are spoken of as having wings, figure, and often, human shape, in which they were sometimes, not merely visible, but tangible, and performed the characteristic material acts of eat- ing and drinking. See Gen. xviii : 2, 5, 8 ; xix : 10, 16. On this it may be remarked that Scripture expressly assigns wings to no orders but cherubim and seraphim. We see Dan. ix :2i, and Rev. xiv:6, speaking of angels, not cherubim and seraphim, as " flying." But this may be in the general sense of rapid motion ; not motion with wings. The purpose of these appearances is obvious, to bring the presence and functions of the angelic visi- tant under the scope of the senses of God's servants, for some particular purpose of mercy. Angelic apparitions seem to have appeared under three circumstances — in dreams — in states of inspired ecstacy, and when the observer was in the usual exer- cise of his senses. Only the latter need any explanation ; for the former cases are accounted for by the ideal impression made on the conception of the dreaming or ecstatic mind by God. But in such cases as that of Gen. xviii and xix, we are bound to believe that these heavenly spirits occupied for the time, real^ material bodies. Any other opinion does violence at once to the laws of exegesis of Scripture language, and to the validity of our senses as inlets of certain and truthful perceptions. Whence then, those bodies? Say some, they were the actual bodies of living men, which the angels occupied, suppressing, for the nonce, the consciousness and personality of the human

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Zech. i:9
  2. Luke 1:13
  3. Job i: 14
  4. Luke vii:24
  5. Heb. i: 13
  6. Luke xx:36
  7. Rev. xiv:6

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 267'

soul to which the body belonged. Some, that they are mate- rial, but glorified substances, kept in heaven, ready for the occas- ional occupancy of angels on their missions ; as we keep a Sun- day-coat in our wardrobes. Some, that they were aerial bodies, composed of compacted atmosphere, formed thus for their tem- porary occupancy, by divine power, and then dissolved into air again. And still others, that they were created by God for them, out of matter, as Adam's body was, and then laid aside. Where God has not seen fit to inform us, I think it best to have no opinion on this mysterious subject. The Scriptures plainly show us, that this incorporation is temporary.

The angels are intelligent and voluntary beings, as is most manifest, from their functions of praising, gent^ao-ents?'^ ^ '"'^ ' worshipping, teaching the prophets, and min- istering to saints, and from their very spirit- uality ; for thought is the characteristic attribute of spirit. We naturally infer that as angels are incorporeal, they have neither senses, nor sensation, nor literal language. Since our senses are the inlets of all our objective knowledge, and the occasional causes of all mental action, we have no experience nor concep- tion of a knowledge without senses. But it does not seem unreasonable to believe that our bodies obstruct the cognitions of our souls, somewhat as imprisoning one within solid walls does his communication with others ; that our five senses are the win- dows, pierced through this barrier, to let in partial perceptions ; and that consequently, the disembodied soul perceives and knows somehow, with vastly greater freedom and fulness, by direct spiritual apprehension. Yet all of the knowledge of angels is not direct intuition. No doubt much of it is mediate and deductive, as is so much of ours ; for the opposite form of cognition can only be universal, in an infinite understanding. It is very clear also, that the knowledge of angels is finite and sus- ceptible of increase. Mark, xiii : 32 ; Eph. iii : 10 ; i Pet. i : 12; Dan. viii : l6. Turrettin's four classes of angelic knowl- edge— natural, experimental, supernatural, and revealed — might, I think, be better arranged as their concreated, their acquired, and their revealed knowledge. It is, in fine, clear that their knowledge and wisdom are great. They appear, Dan. and Rev., as man's teachers, they are glorious and splendid creatures, and they enjoy more favour and communion from God. See also, 2. Sam. xiv : 20.

They are also beings of great power; passing over vast spaces with almost incredible speed, Dan. °^^''^' ix : 23 ; exercising portentous physical pow-

ers, 2 Kings xix ; 35 ; Zech. xii : 8 ; Acts xii : 7, lO ; Matt, xxviii : 2, and they are often spoken of as mighty beings Ps. ciii : 20 ; Rev. x : i ; v : 2, and are spoken of as d'jwj.nttz, prin- cipalities, &c., Eph. vi : 12 ; 2 Thess. i: 7. This power is un- doubtedly always within God's control, and never truly super-

268 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

natural, although superhuman. It seems to have extended at times, by God's, permission, to men's bodies, to diseases, to the atmosphere, and other elements.

The romantic distribution of the angels into a hierarchy of „, . ^ , three classes and nine orders, borrowed by

I heir Orders. .1 t» i t^- • r 1 tm • •

the rseudo Dionysius irom the rlatomzmg

Jews, need not be refuted here. It is supposed by many Prot- estants, that there are differences of grade among angels, (though what, we know not,) from the fact — (a) That Paul uses several terms to describe them. Col. i : 16; (b) That there is at least one superior angel among the evil angels ; (c) That we hear of an archangel, Michael ; (d) That God's terrestrial works exhibit every where, gradations.

If, as some suppose, Michael is identical with the Angel of the Covenant, the third of these considera- of Covenant" "^^ tions is removed. Their reasons are, that he is called the Archangel, and is the only one to whom the title is given ; that he is called the Prince, and great Prince, who stood for Israel, (Dan. x : 21; xii : i,) and that he is seen, (Rev. xii : 7,) heading the heavenly war against Satan and his kingdom ; a function suited to none so well as to the Messiah. But it is objected, with entire justice, that his name (Who is as God ?) is not any more significant of the Messiah than that of Michaiah, and is several times the name of a man — that he is one, "one of the chief princes." Dan. x : 13. That in Jude, he was under authority in his dispute over Moses' body, and that he is plainly distinguished from Christ, (i Thess. ■iv : 16,) where Christ descends from heaven with the voice of the archangel, and trump of God.

A more difficult question is, what were the cherubim men- Cherubim. What? ^,1°"^^' .Gen. iii:24; Exod. xxv:i8; i Kmgs VI : 23; Ps. xviii : 10 ; Ezek. x : 5, 7, •&c., and most probably, under the name of seraphim, in Is. vi : 2. It is very evident, also, that the " living creatures, described in Ezekiel's vision, ch. i : 5, as accompanying the wheels, and sustaining the divine throne, were the same. Dr. Fairbairn, the most quoted of modern interpreters of types and symbols, teaches that the cherubim are not existences at all, but mere ideal symbols, representing humanity redeemed and glorified. His chief argument, omitting many fanciful ones drawn from the fourfold nature, and their wings, &c., is : that they are man- ifestly identical with the Zmo. of Rev. iv : 6-8, which evi- dently symbolize, ch. v : 8-10, somehow, the ransomed Church. The great objections are, that the identification is not certain, inasmuch as John's Zoxi. had but one face each ; that there is no propriety in founding God's heavenly throne and providence on glorified humanity, as His immediate attendants; but chiefly, that while it might consist with prophetic vision to make them ideal symbols, it utterly outrages the plain narrative

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 269.

of Gen, iii : 24. And the duty of the cherubim, there de- scribed, obstructing sinful man's approach to the tree of Hfe, with a flaming sword, the symbol of justice, is one utterly unfitted to redeemed and glorified humanity. Hence, I believe, with the current of older divines, that the cherubim are not identical with John's "living creatures," but are angels, like all the others, real, spiritual, intelligent beings ; and that when God was pleased to appear to Isaiah and Ezekiel in prophetic vision, they received temporarily these mixed forms, to be symbolical of certain traits of obedience, intelligence, strength, and swift- ness, which they show as ministers of God's providence and worshippers of His upper sanctuary. (The etymology of the word is utterly obscure.)

That all these spiritual beings were created holy and 1. The Antrels' first ^appy, is evident from God's character, estate, their probation, which is incapable of producing ' sin or mis- and issue thereof. gjy . ggg Gen. i : 3 1 ; from the frequent use

of the term holy angels, and from all that is revealed of their occupations and affections, which are pure, blessed and happy. The same truth is implied, in what is said, 2 Pet. ii : 4, of " angels that sinned," and so were not spared, but cast down to- hell, and Jude 6, of "angels that kept not their first estate." This first estate was, no doubt, in all, an estate of holiness and happiness. As to the change which has taken place in it, we are indeed left mainly to inference, by God's word ; but it is> inference so well supported by His attributes, and the analogy of man's case, that I feel a good degree of confidence in draw- ing it. A holy, intelligent creature, would owe service to God, with love and worship, by its natural relation to Him. And' while God would be under no obligations to such a creature, to preserve its being, or bestow a happy immortality, yet His own righteousness and benevolence would forbid His visiting exter- nal suffering on that creature, while holy. The natural relation then, between such a creature and God, would be this : God- would bestow perfect happiness, just so long as the creature continued to render perfect obedience, and no longer. For both the natural and legal consequence of sin would be spirit- ual death. But it would seem that some of the angels are elect, and these are now confirmed in a state of everlasting holiness and bhss. For holiness is their peculiarity, their blessedness seems complete, and they are mentioned as sharing with man the heavenly mansions, whence we know glorified saints will never fall. On the other hand, another class of, the angels- have finally and irrevocably fallen into spiritual death. The inference from these facts would seem to be, that the angels, like the human race, have passed under the probation of a covenant of works. The elect kept it, the non-elect broke it;, the difference between them being made, so far as God was the author of it, not by His efficacious active decree and grace^

2/0 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

but by His permissive decree, in which both classes were wholly left to the freedom of their wills. God only determin- ing by His Providence the circumstances surrounding them, which became the occasional causes of their different choices, and limiting their conduct. On those who kept their proba- tion, through the efficacy of this permissive decree, God graciously bestowed confirmation in hohness, adoption, and inheritance in life everlasting. This, being more than a tempo- rary obedience could earn, was of pure grace ; yet not through a Mediator; because the angels, being innocent, needed none. When this probation began, what was its particular condition, and when it ended, we know not ; except that the fall of Satan, and most probably that of his angels, preceded Adam's. Nor is the nature of the sin known. Some, from Mark iii : 29, sup- pose it was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Others, from I Tim. iii : 6, suppose it was pride ; neither conclusively. Guess- ing is vain, where there is no key to a solution. It may very possibly be that pride was the sin, for it is one to which Satan's spiritual nature and exalted state might be liable. The great difficulty is how, in a will prevalently holy, and not even swayed by innocent bodily wants and appetites, and where there was not in the whole universe a single creature to entice to sin, the first wrong volition could have place. At the proper time I will attempt to throw on this what light is in my power.

The good angels are engaged, first, in the worship and ■ adoration of God. Matt, xviii : lO; Rev. good angels?^ '°"^ ° v: II. Second, God employs them in ad- ministering His gracious and providential government over the world. Under this head we may notice : (a) That they aided in the giving of Revelation, as the Law. Acts vii : 53 ; Gal, iii : 19, and many prophetic messages and disclosures, as Dan. x. (b) They seem to have some concern in social and national events, procuring the execution of God's purposes. Dan. x : 13. (c) They are employed to punish His enemies, as instruments of His righteous vengeance. 2 Kings xix : 35; Acts xii : 23 ; i Chron. xxi : 16. (d) They are sent forth to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. i : 14; Acts xii : 7; Ps. xci : 10-12, (e) They guide the departing souls of Christians home to their mansions in heaven. Luke xvi : 22. Last. They are Christ's agents in the general judgment and resurrection. ]\Latt. xiii : 39; xxiv : 31 ; i Thess. iv : 17, 18.

As to the exact nature of the agencies exerted for the Howexercis'ed? ^^^"^^ ^>' ^^^ ministering angels. Christians

are perhaps not very well instructed, nor agreed. A generation ago, it was currently believed that they communicated to their minds instructions important to their duty or welfare, by dreams, presentiments, or impressions. Of these, many Christians are now skeptical. It seems more cer-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2/1

tain that they exert an invisible superintendence over our wel- fare, in and under the laws of nature. Whether they influence our waking- minds unconsciously by suggesting thoughts and feelings through our law of associated ideas, is much debated. I see in it nothing incredible. The pleasing and fanciful idea of guardian angels is grounded on the following scriptures : Dan. X : 13, 20; Matt, xviii : 10; Acts xii : 15. The most that these passages can prove is, that provinces and countries may have their affairs committed in some degree to the special care of some of the higher ranks of angels ; and that superstitious Jews supposed that Peter had his own guardian angel, who might borrow Peter's body for the purpose of an apparition. The idea has more support in New Platonism than in Scripture. The personality of Satan and his angels is to be estab- lished by an argument exactly similar to

5. a an a eison. ^j^^^ employed for the good angels. Almost every possible act and attribute of personality is ascribed to them; so that we may say, the Scripture contains scarcely more proof of the existence of a personal God, than of a Devil. He speaks, goes, comes, reasons, hates, is judged, and is punished. See for instance, such passages as Matt, iv : i-i i ; Jno. viii : 44; Job i : 6 to ii : 7.

There is no subject on which we may more properly

_ . . - remember that " There are more things in

ocriDturcs induce

over whole Bible His- heaven and earth than are dreamed of in

tory the form of the our philosophy." two rival Kingdoms.

It is evidently the design of the Scriptures to make much of Satan and his work. From first to last, the favorite repre- sentation of the world's history is, that it is the arena for a struggle between two kingdoms — Christ's and Satan's. Christ leads the kingdom of the good, Satan that of the evil ; though with different authorities and powers. The headship of Satan over his daemons is implied where they are called "his angels." He is also called Prince of Devils. Eph. ii : 2 ; Matt, xxv : 41 ; ix : 34. Prince of the powers of the air, and Prince of darkness. Eph. vi : 12. This pre-eminence he doubtless acquired partly by seducing them at first, and probably con- firmed by his superior powers. His dominion is compacted by fear and hatred of God, and common purposes of malice. It is by their concert of action that they seem to approach so near to ubiquity in their influences. That Satan is also the tyrant and head of sinful men is equally plain. This prevalent Bible picture of the two kingdoms may be seen carried out in these particulars, (a) Satan originated sin. Gen. iii : i ; Rev. xii : 9, 10; XX : 2, 10; i Jno. iii : 8 ; Jno. viii : 44 ; 2 Cor. xi : 3. (b) Satan remains the leader of the human and angelic hosts which he seduced into hostility, and employs them in desperate resistance to Christ and His Father. He is the " God

2/2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of this world." 2 Cor. iv : 4. " The Spirit that worketh in the children of this world." Eph. ii : 2. Wicked men are his- captives. See above, and 2 Tim. ii : 26. He is " the Adver- sary " (Satan,) " the Accuser," [Jca^iolo:;,) " the Destroyer," {\l-i)}./.'MO)y). (c) The progress of Christ to the final overthrow of this kingdom is the one great business of all time ; the his- tory of the conflict is the history of man and redemption. Gen. iii : 15 ; Jno. xii : 31 ; i Jno. iii : 8-10; i Pet. v : 8; Eph. vi : II ; Jno. viii : 44; Mark, iii : 23-27; Rom. xvi : 20; Acts xxvi : 18; Luke X : 18. The single fact that ungodly men, until the end of the world, compose Satan's kingdom, proves that he has, and will have some power or influence over their souls.

The powers of Satan and his angels are (a) always, and in all forms, strictly under the control of God gek?''""' °^ ^^^ '^"" and His permissive decree and providence, (b) They are often, perhaps, super-human,, but never supernatural. If they do what man cannot, it is not by possession of omniscience or omnipotence, but by natural law : as a son of Anak could lift more than a common man, or a Davy or Brewster could control more of the powers of nature than a peasant.

There is a supposition, which seems to have plausible grounds, that as the plan of redemption advances, the scope of Satan's operations is progressively narrowed ; just as the general who is defeated, is cut off from one and another of his resources, and hemmed in to a narrower theatre of war, until his final capture. It may be, then, that his power of afflicting, human bodies, of moving the material elements, of communi- cating with wizzards, of producing mania by his possessions, has been, or will be successively retrenched ; until at last the millennium shall take away his remaining power of ordinary temptation. See Luke x : 18: Mark iii : 27; Rev. xx : 3. But

Satan once had, and for anything that can be proved, , . -^ may now have extensive powers over the

atmosphere and elements. The first is proved by Job, ch. i and 2. From this would naturally follow influence over the bodily health of men. No one can prove that some pestilences and droughts, tempests and earthquakes- are not his work now.

He once had at least an occasional power of direct injec- tion of conceptions and emotions, both inde- minds. ^ ^ '^ ""^^" pendent of the man's senses and suggestions. See Matt, iv : 3, &c. This is the counterpart of the power of good angels, seen in Dan. ix : 22 ; Matt, ii : 13. It this power which makes the crime of witchcraft possi- ble. The wizzard was a man, and the witch a woman, who was supposed to communicate with an evil angel, and receive

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2/3

from him, at the cost of some profane and damnable price, power to do superhuman things, or to reveal secrets beyond human ken. Its criminality was in its profanity, in the alliance with God's enemy, and its malignity in employing the arch- murderer, and always for wicked or malicious ends against oth- Witchcraft. ^^^' "" Exod. xxii : 1 8, witchcraft is made

a capital sin ; and in Gal. v : 20, it is still mentioned as a " work of the flesh." Yet some suppose that the sin never could be really committed. They account for Moses' statute by supposing that the class actually existed as impostors, and God justly punished them for their animus. This, I think, is hardly tenable. Others suppose the sin was anciently actual ; but that now, according to the supposition of a gradual restriction, God no longer permits it ; so that all modern wizzards are impostors. Doubtless there was, at all times, a large infusion of imposture. Others suppose that God still occasionally permits the sin, relaxing His curb on Satan in judicial anger against men, as in the age of Moses. There is nothing unscriptural in this. I do not admit the reality of any modern case of witchcraft, only because I have seen no evidence that stands a judicial examination.

Evil spirits had power over men's bodies and souls, by usurping a violent control over their sug- gestions, emotions and volitions, and thus violating their rational personality, and making the human members, for the time, their implements. This, no doubt, was attended with unutterable horror and agitation of consciousness,

^, , in the victim. This has been a favourite

These real. , • r 1 • 1 i- • -ri.

topic 01 neologic skepticism. Ihey urge that the Evangelists did not really mean to teach actual posses- sion ; but their object being theological, and not medical or psychological, they used the customary language of their day, not meaning thereby to endorse it, as scientific or accurate ; because any other language would have been pedantic and use- less. They refer to Josh, x : 12. In Matt, iv : 24, lunatics {azAf^via^ouivoc) are named; but we do not suppose the author meant to assert they were moonstruck. They remind us of similar cases of mania now cured by opiates or blisters. They remind us that " possessions," like other superstitions, are limited to the dark ages. They argue that daemons are said, Jude 6th, to be in chains, &c.

In this case the theory is incompatible with the candour of the sacred writers. For : ist. They distinguish between " pos- sessions" and diseases of a physiological source, by mentioning both separately. See Mark i: 32; Luke vi : 17, 18; Matt, iv : 24, &c. 2d. The daemons, as distinct from the possessed man, speak, and are spoken to, are addressed, commanded and i-e- buked by our Saviour, and deprecate His wrath. Mark i : 25, 34; ix : 25; Matt, viii : 32; xvii: 18. 3d. They have perso::- 18*

274 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ality after they go out of men ; whereas the disease has no entity apart from the body of which it was an affection. See Luke viii: 32. 4th. A definite number of daemons possessed one man, Mark v : 9, and one woman, Mark xvi : 9. 5th. Their moral quality is assigned. 6th. The victories of Christ and His Apostles over them, announced the triumph of a spiritual king- dom over Satan's. Mark iii : 27 ; Luke xi : 20.

Do " possessions " now exist ? Many reply, No ; some, on the supposition of a progressive restriction of Satan's license ; others, supposing that in the age of miracles. Providence made special allowance of this malice, in order to give Christ and His missionaries spcial opjDortunity to evince the power of His kingdom, and show earnests of its overthrow. The latter is one object of Christ's victories over these " possessions." See Mark iii : 27 : Luke xi : 20 : x : 1 7-20, (where we have a sepa- rate proof of the spiritual nature of these possessions, as above shown). Whether " possessions " occur now, I do not feel qualified to affirm or deny.

The fourth power of Satan and dzemons is doubtless ordi- nary, and will be until the millennium ; that 4. emp a ons. ^^ tempting to sin. This they may still carry

on by direct injection of conceptions, or affections of the sensi- bility, without using the natural laws of sensibility or sugges- tion ; and which they certainly do practice through the natural co-operation of those laws. Thus : A given mental state has a natural power to suggest any other with which it is associated. So that of several associated states, either one might naturally arise in the mind by the next suggestion. Now, these evil spirits seem to have the power of giving a prevalent vividness (and thus power over the attention and emotions) to that one of the asso- ciated states which best suits their malignant purposes. Thus : shall the sight of the wine-cup suggest most vividly, the jollity and pleasure of the past, or the nausea and remorse that followed it ? If the latter, the mind will tend to sobriety ; but if the former, it is tempted to sin. Here is the subtlety, and hence the danger of these practices, that they are not distinguished in our consciousness from natural suggestions, because the Satanic agency is strictly through the natural channels.

The mutual influence of the physiological states of the nerves and acts of organs of sense, over the boch\^ op^''^ ^ roug mind, and vice versa, is a very obscure sub- ject. We know, at least, that there is a mass of important truth there, as yet partially explored. I\Iany believe that a concept, for instance, actually colours the retina of the eye, as though the visual spcctriivi of the object was formed on it. All have experienced the influence of emotions over our sense-perceptions. Animal influences on the organs of sense and nerves influence both concepts and percepts. Now, ir evil spirits can produce an animal effect on our functions of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 275

nervQus sensibility, they have a mysterious mode of affecting our souls.

We must also consider the regular psychological law, that vivid suggestions recurring too often always tion^'u™ofesom?^'" ^voke a morbid action of the soul. The same subject of anxiety, for instance, too fre- quently recalled, begets an exaggerated anxiety. The " One- idea-man" is a monomaniac. It thus becomes obvious, how Satan may now cause various grades of lunacy, and often does. (This is not to be confounded with actual " possessions.") Hence, in part, religious melancholies, the most frightful of mental diseases. The maniac even, has recessions of disease ; or he has seasons of glee, which, if maniacal, are actual joy to his present consciousness. But the victim of religious melan- choly has no respite ; he is crushed by a perpetual incubus. You can see how Satan (especially if bodily disease co-ope- rates) can help to propagate it by securing the too constant recurrence of subjects of spiritual doubt or anxiety. You will see also, that the only successful mode to deal with the victims of these attacks is by producing diversion of the habitual trains of thought and feeling.

7. How powerful is the motive to prayer, and gratitude for exemption from these calamitous spiritual assaults, for which we have no adequate defence in ourselves ? The duty of watch- fulness against temptations and their occasions, is plain. It becomes an obvious Christian duty to attempt to preserve the health of the nervous system, refraining from habits and stimu- lants which may have, we know not what influence on our ner- vous idiosyncrasy. It is also the duty of all to avoid over- coming and inordinate emotions about any object ; and to abstain from a too constant pursuit of any carnal object, lest Satan should get his advantage of us thereby.

This discussion shows us how beneficent is the interruption of secular cares by the Sabbath's break.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. 2 Thess. i: 7
  2. Gen. iii:24
  3. Mark i: 32
  4. Luke viii: 32

SYLLABUS

1. Define God's Providence. State the other theories of His practical relation to the universe. What concern has Providence in physical causes and laws ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 5. Turrettin, Loc. vi, Qu. i, 2, 4. Dick, Lect. 41, 42. Calvin's Inst., bk. i, ch. 16 to 18. "Reign of Law," by Duke of Argyll. Southern Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1870, Art. i. Knapp, Chr. Theol., Art. viii. McCosh, Div. Gov., bk. ii, ch. i.

2. Argue the doctrine of a special, from that of a general Providence. Turrettin, Loc. vi, Qu. 3. Dick and Calvin as above.

3. Prove the doctrine of Providence; (a) from God's perfections; (b) from man's moral intuition; (c) from the observed course of nature and human history; (d) from the dependence of creatures.

Turrettin, Loc. vi, Qu. i. Calvin and Dick as above. Knapp, Art. viii, | 68.

4. Present the Scriptural argument ; (a) from prophecies ; (b) from express tes- timonies. Answer objections.

Same authorities, and Dick, Lect. 43.

5. Does God's Providence extend to all acts of rational free-agents? What is His concern in the gracious acts of saints? What, in the evil acts of sinners ? Dis- cuss the doctrine of an immediate coiicursus in the latter.

Turrettin, Loc. vi, Qu. 4-8. Calvin, Inst., bk. i, ch. 18. Witsius, de Oec Fed, bk. i, ch. 8, I 13-29. Dick, Lect. 42, 43. Hill's Div., bk. .iv, ch. 9, I 3. Knapp, Art. viii, I 70-72, Hodge's Outlines, ch. 13. Hodge, Syst. Theol., Vol. i, ch. II, § 1/3, 4-

"PROVIDENTIA, Greek, iznovoca, is the execution in succes-

sive time, of God's eternal, unsuccessive purpose, or rzoodsmc.

We believe the Scriptures to teach, not only

I & 2. Definitions, ^^^ q^ oris^inated the whole universe, but

and other theories. , ^-r , 1 • 1 ■

that He bears a perpetual, active relation

to it ; and that these works of providence are " His most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions." It may be said that there are, besides this, three other theories concerning God's relation to the Universe ; that of the Epicurean, who, though admitting an intelligent deity, supposed it inconsistent with His blessedness- and perfections, to have any likings or anger, care or concern in the multiform events of the worlds ; that of the Rational Deists, Socinians, and many rationalists, that God's concern with the Universe is not universal, special and perpetual, but only gene- ral, viz: by first endowing it with general laws of action, to the operation of which each individual being is then wholly left, God only exercising a general oversight of the laws, and not of specific agents; and that of the Pantheists, who identify all seeming substances with God. by making them mere modes of His self-development ; so that there is no providential relation, but an actual identity ; and all the events and acts of the Uni- verse are simply God acting.

The first theory is, as we shall see, practical atheism, and 276

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2//

General rrovidence 's contradicted by a proper view of God's unreasonable without attributes. The third has been already re- ^P'^^^^^- futed, as time and abiHty 'allowed. Against

the second, or Deistical, I object that the seeming analogy by which it is suggested is a false one. That analogy is doubtless of human rulers — e. g., a commander of an army, who regulates general rules and important events, without being himself cognizant of special details ; and of machi- nists, who construct a machine and start its motion, so that it performs a multitude of special evolutions, not individually directed by the maker. The vital difference is, that the human ruler employs a multitude of intelligent subordinates, inde- pendent of him for being, whose intention specifically embraces the details; whereas God directs inanimate nature, according to deists, without such intervention. The Platonist conception of a providence administered over particulars by daemons is more consistent with this analogy. And the machinist does but adjust some motive power which God's providence supplies (water on his wheel, the elasticity of a spring, &c.,) to move his machine in his absence ; whereas God's providence itself must be the motive power of His universal machine. 2d. On this deistical scheme of providence, results must either be fortuitous to God, (and then He is no longer Sovereign nor Almighty, and we reach practical atheism,) or else their occurrence is deter- mined by Him through the medium of causations possessed of a physical necessity, (and we are thus landed in stoical fate !) 3d. It is a mere illusion to talk of a certain direction of the general, which does not embrace the particulars ; for a general class is nothing, when separated from the particulars which com- pose it, but an abstraction of the mind. Practically, the general is only produced by producing all the specials which compose it. If the agents or instruments by which a general superin- tendence is exercised, be contingent and fallible, the providence must be such also. God's providence is efficient and almighty : it must then be special, or all its instruments Gods. 4th. God's providence evolves all events by using second causes according to their natures. But all events are interconnected, nearly or remotely, as causes and effects. And the most minute events ■often bear the connection with the grandest; e. g., the burning of a city from a vagrant spark ; the change of King Ahab's dynasty by an errant arrow. Hence, according to this mode of providence, which we see God usually employs, unless His care extended to every event specially, it could not effectuate any, certainly. To exercise a general providence without a special, is as though a man should form a chain without forming its links.

The definition of Providence, which we adopted from the Catechism, divides it into two works — sustentation and govern- ment.

278 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

According to the Augustinian scholastics, the Cartesians, and many of the stricter Calvinistic Reform- Scholastic concep- ^j j sustentation of creatures in being is

bon of Sustentation. „' , , , . -_ °

effected by a perpetual, active eiilux or con- cursus of divine power at every successive instant, identical with that act of will and power by which they were brought out of nihil into esse ; and they conceive that on the cessation of this act of God, for one instant, towards any creature what- soever, it would return incontinently to non-existence. So that it is no figure of speech with them to say, " Sustentation is a pe rpetual re-creation." Their arguments are, that God alone is self-existent; hence those things which have a dependent exist- ence cannot have the ground of the continuance of their exist- ence in themselves. That all creatures exist in successive time : but the instants of successive time have no substantive tie be- tween them by which one produces the next ; but they only follow each other, whence it results that successive existence is momentarily returning to 7iihil, and is only kept out of it by a perpetual re-creation. And 3d : They quote Scriptures, as Neh. ix : 6; Job. x : 12 ; Ps. civ : 27-30; Acts xvii : 28 ; Heb. 1:3; Col. i : 17 ; Isa. x : 15.

This speculation has always seemed to me without basis,. and its demonstration, to say the least, im- possible for the human understanding. But let me distinctly premise, that both the existence and essence, or the being and properties of every created thing, originated out of • nothing, in the mere will and power of God ; that they are absolutely subject, at every instant of their successive ex- istence, to His sovereign power ; that their action is all regulated by His special providence, and that He could reduce them to nothing as easily as He created them. Yet, when I am re- quired to believe that their sustentation is a literal, continuous re-production by God's special act out of nihil, I cannot but remember that, after all, the human mind has no cognition of substance itself, except as the unknown substr-atum of proper- ties, and no insight into the manner in which it subsists. Hence we are not qualified to judge, whether its subsistence is main- tained in this way. The arguments seem to me invalid.

If man's reason has any necessary ontological judgment whatever, it is this : That substance involves reality, continuity of existence, and permanency. Such is, in short, substantially the description which the best mental science now gives of that thing, so essential to our perception. When we deny self- existence to creatures, we deny that the cause which originates their existence can be in them ; but this is far from proving that God, in originating their existence, may not have conferred it as a permanent gift, continuing itself so long as He permits it. e. g.. Motion is never assumed by matter of itself; but when im- pressed from without, it is never self-arrested. To say that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 2/9

finite creatures exist in successive time, or have their existence measured by it, is wholly another thing from showing that this succession constitutes their existence. What is time, but an abstract idea of our minds, which we project upon the finite existence which we think of or observe ? Let any man analyse his own conception, and he will find that the existence is con- ceived of as possessing a true continuity ; it is the time by which his mind measures it, that lacks the continuity. Last. These general statements of Scripture only assert the practical and entire dependence of creatures ; no doubt their authors would be very much surprised to hear them interpreted into these metaphysical subtilties.

You will observe that the class of ideas which leads to this Monads not de- doctrine of a perpetual efflux of divine power, pendent in same way in recreation, are usually borrowed from as organisms. organized, material bodies. Men forget that

ths existence of organisms may be, and probably is, dependent, in a very different sense, from that of simple existence, such as a material ultimate atom, or a pure spirit. For the existence of an organized body is nothing but the continuance of its organ- ization, i. e., of the aggregation of its parts in certain modes. This, in turn, is the effect of natural causes ; but these causes operate under the perpetual, active superintendence of God. So that it is literally true, the existence of a compounded organ- ism, like the human body, is the result of God's perpetual, providential activity ; and the mere cessation of this would be the end of the organism. But the same fact is not proved of simple, monadic substances.

But what are natural causes and laws? This question

enters intimately into our views of provi- csZlT '^ ^^^""'^ dence, inasmuch as they are the means with

which providence works. The much-abused phrase, law of nature, has been vaguely used in various senses. The Duke of Argyle says he finds the word " Law," used in five senses. I. For an observed order of facts. 2. The un- known force implied therein. 3. The ascertained limit of a force. 4. Combinations of force for a ' final cause.' 5. The order of thought which the reason supplies for explanation of observed effects, as in Mechanics, the ' first law of motion.' The list might be larger, but properly it means that it is the observed regular mode or rule, according to which a given cause, or class of causes operates under given conditions. This definition of itself will show us the absurdity of offering a law of nature to account for the existence of anything. For nature is but an abstraction, and the law is but the regular mode of acting of a cause ; so that instead of accounting for, it needs to be accounted for itself The fact that a phenomenon is pro- duced again and again regularly, does not account for its pro- duction! The true question which lies at the root of the

280 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

matter is, concerning the real power which is present in natural causes. We s^y that they are those things which, under cer- tain conditions, have power to produce certain effects. What, then, is the power ? It is answered that the power resides in some property of the thing we call cause, when that property is brought into certain relations with the properties of some other thing. But still the question recurs : Is the power, the activity, a true property of the thing which acts as cause, or is the power truly God's force, and the occurrence of the relation between the properties of cause and effect, merely the appointed occasion of its exertion? This is the question. Let me pre- mise, before stating the answers given, that the question should be limited to the laws of material nature, and to physical causes. All sound philosophy now regards intelligent spirits as themselves proper fountains of causation, because possessed of a true spontaneity and self-determination, not indeed emanci- pated from God's sovereign control, yet real and intrinsically active, as permitted and regulated by Him.

But, as to physical causes, orthodox divines and philoso- phers give different answers. Say the one ur?foL't;'God."'' Class, as Dick, matter is only passive. The coming of the properties of the cause into the suitable relation to the effect, is only the occasion ; the true agency is but God's immediately. All physical power is God directly exerting Himself through passive matter; and the law of the cause is but the regular mode which He proposes to Himself for such exertions of His power. Hence, the true dif- ference between natural power and miraculous, would only be, that the former is customary under certain conditions, the latter, under those conditions, unusual. When a man feels his weary limbs drawn towards the earth, by what men call gravity, it is in fact as really God drawing them, as when, against gravity, the body of Elijah or Christ was miraculously borne on high. And the reason they assign is : that matter is negative and inert ; and can only be the recipient of power : and that it is incapa- ble of that intelligence, recollection, and volition, implied in obedience to a regular law.

Others, as McCosh, Hodge, &c., would say, that to deny all properties of action to material things, is to DefJlfti'vl °^ ^""^"^^ reduce them to practical nonentity ; leaving God the only agent and the only true exist- ence, in the material universe. Their view is that God, in creat- ing and organizing material bodies, endued them with certain properties. These properties He sustains in them by that per- petual support and superintendence He exerts. And these properties are specific powers of acting or being acted on, when brought into suitable relations with the properties of other bod- ies. Hence, while power is really in the physical cause, it or-ginated in, and is sustained by, God's power. The question

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 28 1

then arises: If this be so, if the power is intrinsically in the physical cause, wherein does God exert any special providence in each case of causation ? Is not His providential control banished from the domain of these natural laws, and limited to His act of creation, which endued physical causes with their power? The answer which McCosh makes to this question is: that nothing is a cause by itself ; nor does a mere capacity for producing a given effect make a thing a cause ; unless it be placed in a given relation with a suitable property of some other thing. And here, says he, is God's special, present prov- idence ; in constituting those suitable relations for inter-action, by His superintendence. The obvious objection to this answer seems to have been overlooked; that these juxta-positions, or relations, are themselves always brought about by God (except where free agents are employed) by natural causes. Hence, the view of God's providence that would result, would be noth- ing more than the pre-established harmony of Leibnitz, from whom, indeed, his views seem derived. This would, indeed, give the highest conception of the wisdom, power, and sove- reignty exercised in establishing the amazing plan ; but it would leave God no actual providential functions to perform in time, except the doubtful one of the mere sustentation of simple being. For, you must note : since the continued aggregation of the parts of an organism results from the operation of natural laws between its elementary parts. His concern in the sustentation of compounded bodies would be no other than in the working of natural laws. The explanation is therefore •obviously defective.

Let us see to what extent the defect can be supplied.

, , „ The problem which the Rationalist supposes

How amended ? i. u • i j • ^.i • t t /-* j » rr , •

to be mvolved is this : How God s effective

providence can intervene consistently with the uniformity of natural laws. Now, the laws of nature are invariable, only in the sense defined above. When a given law is the expression of the mode in which a real, natural cause acts ; then it is invariable in this sense, that granting the same conditions in every respect, the same power will produce the same effect. But it must be noted, that in nature, effects are never the sole results of a single power. Combination of natural powers is the condition of all effects. Our description of God's provi- dence over nature must be, in a good sense, " anthropopathic." How then, does man's personal will use the powers of nature ? • He is not able, and does not aim, to change the invariability of either of the powers which he borrows. But, knowing the invariable law of one cause, he combines with this some other power, or powers, which are also used in strict accordance with their laws, so as to control the conditions under which they to- gether act. Thus, he modifies the effects, without infringing at all the regularity of the natural laws. And this is rational con-

252 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

trivance for an end. Thus, even in man's hands, while the law of each power is invariable, by combination of a rational prov- idence, the uses are widely flexible. .Must not this be much more possible in God's hands ? Thus, for instance, man con- structs a clock, for the purpose of keeping time. He avails himself of one law, the gravitation of a mass of metal sus- pended, which is absolutely unchangeable. He combines with this, by a set of wheels, and an "escapement," the action of another law ; the regular beat of a pendulum thirty-nine inches long. This is also invariable. But by this combination, the mechanic has made a clock, which he can cause to keep siderial or solar time, to run faster or slower. It is not by interrupting the regularity of two forces, but by virtue of that regularity, that he is enabled to produce these varied effects. By a rational providence, these invariable forces are made to perform a new function.

Now, man's agency here is supra material, namely, per- sonal, intelHgent and voluntary. Is then, all Is Providence, then, Qg^'g working in special providence super- natural? The answer is, it is supta physical being personal ; but not in the proper sense supernatural, any more than man's similar agency. For that which Personal Will effectuates through the regular laws of second causes, is properly natural. The supernatural is that which God effect- uates by power above those causes.

It may be objected, that, as we observe the clock maker shaping and adjusting the parts of machinery, jection. i^y. ^^j^j(,j-^ j^g combines two or more invaria-

ble powers for a varying function, so, we should have expe- rimental knowledge of God's processes in His providence. We reply : Is the machinist's result any the less natural, because he chose to work only in secret ? The answer contained in this question has its force greatly enhanced by remarking that the Agent of providence is an invisible Spirit. It is also certainly a part of His purpose that His hand shall be invisible, in His ordinary working. This His objects require. Hence, we are to reconcile our minds to this fact, that while the reality of a special providence, and its possibility, are rationally demon- strable, man is not to find its method explicable. Here faith must perform her humble office. But when the possibility of its execution by infinite power and wisdom are shown, all is done that is needed to silence rationalism.

The speculations of the Duke of Argyle have been men- tioned above, with approbation. This imposes Is a miracle the re- necessity of dissenting from his opinion as suit of an inner Law. .J -r^ ■ ■ ^ ,

to the miracle. Desirmg, apparently, to con- ciliate the rationalistic cavil, that the " invariability of the laws of nature," renders a miracle absolutely impossible and incredi- ble, he advances this definition ; Let a miracle be called an

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 285

effect which, while above and beside all laws of nature explored by man, will yet be found (in the light of heaven perhaps,) to be but an expression of some higher and more recondite law. From this view I wholly dissent. It is inconsistent with the prime end for which God has introduced miracles, to be attes- tations to man of God's messages. For, we have only to sup- pose human physical science carried to higher stages, and the events which were miraculous to a ruder age, would become natural. All miracles would cease to be arijizla just so soon as they were comprehended ; but it is the glory of the true mira- cle, that the more fully it is comprehended, the more certainly it would be a ar^iiziov. On this plan the effects of the electric telegraph, to us merely human, would have been veritable mira- cles to Peter and Paul, and would now be, to the Hottentot christians. This definition then, virtually destroys the chris- tian miracles. We must hold fast to the old doctrine ; that a miracle is a phenomenal effect above all the powers of nature ; properly the result of supernatural power: i. e., of God's immediate power which He has not regularly put into any sec- ond causes, lower or higher. The advocates of the new defini- tion may retort, that in denying miracles to be expressions of some higher, recondite law, I assign them a lawless character. Should we not, they ask, claim for them, as for all God's acts, a lucid method, a rational order? I reply: By all means, yes. Miracles are not anarchical infractions of nature's order. But they confound the law of the divine purpose, which is but the infinite thought regulating God's own will and acts, with some recondite natural law. Every miracle was wrought in strict conformity with God's decree. But this is in God : the natural law is impressed on the nature of second causes.

We see, then, that all general providence is special. And the special is as truly natural as the general.

The natural arose out of the supernatural, and in that sense, reposes upon it at all times. The Divine will is perpetu- ally present, underlying all the natural. Else God is shut back to the beginning of the universe, and has no present action nor administration in His empire. Reason : Because, if you allow Him any occasional, or special present interventions, at decisive crises, or as to cardinal events, those interventions are found to be, as events, no less natural than all other events. They also come through natural law.

A providence is proved : (a.) From- God's perfections. 3. Providence proved, ^^is infinite essence, immensity, omniscience, 1st, from God's perfec- and omnipotence enable Him to sustain such tions. functions to His universe, if He pleases.

And we believe it is His will to do so; first, because His wisdom would not have permitted Him to make a universe with- out an object; and when made, the same wisdom will undoubt- edly employ due means to attain that end. Second. His good-

284 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ness would not permit Him to desert the well being of the various orders of sentient beings He has created and endued with capacities for suffering. Third. His righteousness ensures that after having brought moral relations into existence between Himself and His moral creatures, by the very act of creating them, He cannot desert and neglect those relations.

(b.) Man's moral intuitions impel him to believe that God 2d, From Man's is just, good, true and holy; and that the Moral Intuitions. 3d, natural connection which generally prevails From Nature's Order. -^ ^j^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^j^-^ ^-f^^ between man's exer- cise of these virtues, and well-being, is intentional and retribu- tive. If so, then God's providence is concerned in all that course of nature. So we argue from the instinct of prayer, (c.) The intelligent order which we see in the working of material nature splendidly displays a Providence. A multitude of elements and bodies are here seen connected by most multifarious influences, and yet the complex machine moves on, and never goes wrong. There is a guiding hand ! The same fact is revealed by the steadiness of all the laws of reproduction in nature, especially in the vegetable and animal world, and in man's and animal's sensitive, and man's emotional and intellectual nature. Like does not fail to beget like. Why ? It is strikingly seen in the ratio of the sexes among human births, and the diversity of human countenances. And the revelation of wise designs made at least occasionally in human history (e. g., in the formation of Washington's character, prevalence of the Greek language at the Christian era,) shows that it moves on under the constant superintendence of God.

Man's conscious dependence teaches him the same truth. He has no control over a single one of the peSence?"' "'"''' ^'' ^^ws of nature, such as enables him to educe anything necessary to his well-being from them, with any certainty. If there is no controlling mind to govern them for him, he is the child of a mechanical fate, or of capricious chance.

Scriptures prove a Providence. A preliminary doctrinal

_ . argument may be found in God's decree. If

4. iTom Scriptures. •, • , . , ,, . ,

its existence is proved, then a providence is

proved : for the one is complementary to the other, (a.) By its predictions, promises, and threats, many of which have been explicit and detailed, and long afterwards have been accurately accomplished, e. g., Ex. xii : 46, with Jno. xix : 36 ; Ps. xxii : 18, with Jno. xix: 24; i Kings xx : 13, with xx: 34, 35-38; Micah. v: 2, with Matt, ii : 5 ; Is. xiv : 23 ; Jer. i : 23 to end; Jer. xlix: 17, &c. ; Ezek. xxvi : 4, 5. Without a control that was efficacious, over particular events, God could not thus posi- tively speak. Ps. xci.

(b.) The duty and privilege of prayer, as exercised by in- spired saints, and enjoined in precepts, implies a providence ;

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 285,

for else, God has no sure way to answer. No Providence is practical atheism.

(c.) A multitude of express Scriptures assert God's provi- dence to be universal, e. g.. Fs. ciii : 17-19; Dan. iv: 34, 35 ; Ps. xxii : 28, 29; Job xii : 10, and Chaps, xxxviii-xli ; Col. i: 17 ; Heb. i : 3 ; Acts xvii : 28.

Efficacious and Sovereig)i. — Job xxiii : 13 , Ps. xxxiii : 1 1 ; cxxxv: 6 ; 2d Sam. xvii : 14.

TJie evolution of His eternal purpose. — Ps. civ : 24 ; Is. xxviii : 29 ; Acts xv : 18 : Eph. i : 1 1.

Special and particular. — Matt, x : xxix ; 3 1 : Luke xii : 6, 7 ; Nehemiah, ix : 6 ; Matt, vi : 26 ; Ps. xxxvi : 6 ; cxlv : 15, 16 ; Gen. xxii: 13, 14; Jonah iv : 6, 7, 8.

Over the material zvorld. — Job, Chaps, xxxviii-xli ; Ps. civ : 14 ; cxxxv ; 5-7 : cxlvii : 8-18 ; cxlviii : 7, 8 ; Acts xiv : 17 ; Matt, vi : 30 ; vi : 26.

Over acts to us fortuitous, i. e. those of which the natural causes are unassignable by us, either because undiscovered, as- yet, or so subtile, or complex. Gen. xxiv : 12, 13, &c. ; Exod. xxi : 12, 13; Deut. xix : 4; Ps. Ixxv : 6, 7; Job v:6; Prov. xvi: 33; xxi: 31.

Last : over the good and bad acts of free agents. Reason shows this ; for otherwise God could not govern any of the physical events into which human volitions enter as modifying" causes, either immediately or remotely. Prophecy, threats, promises, and the duty of prayer prove it, (see on Decrees,) and Scripture expressly asserts it. Prov. xvi : 9 ; xx : 24; xxi : i ; Jer. x:23; Ps. xxxiii : 14, 15; Gen. xlviii : 8, &c. ; Exod. xii : 36 ; Ps. XXV : 9-15,; Phil, ii : 13 ; Acts ii : 23 ; 2 Sam. xvi : 10 ; xxiv: I ; Ixxvi : 10; Rom. xi: 36; Acts iv : 28; Rom. ix : 18,* 2 Sam. xii : 1 1 ; i Kings xxii : 23 ; Ps. cv : 25.

The objections against the Bible doctrines may all be

reduced to these heads : Objections.

1. Epicurean; that God would be fatigued from so many cares.

2. That it is derogatory to His dignity to be concerned with trivialities.

3. The disorders existing in material nature, and in the course of human affairs, would be inconsistent with His benevo- lence and righteousness.

4. The doctrine infringes the efficacy of second causes, and the free-agency of intelligent creatures.

5. Last : It makes God the author of sin.

For answers, see discussions above and below : and Dick. Lect. 43.

5. In proceeding to speak of the control of Providence over the acts of intelligent free agents, we must bear in mind the essential difference between them and physical bodies. A

286 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

body is not intrinsically a cause. Causation only tak^s place when a certain relation between given properties of two bodies, is established by God's providence. (See § i.) But a soul is a fountain of spontaneity ; it is capable of will, in itself, and is self-determined to will, by its own prevalent dispositions. Soul is a cause.

Now, the Bible attributes all the spiritually good acts of man to God. Rom. vii : i8 ; Phil, ij : 13 ; iv: ma^fspiritairacL'" ^31 2 Cor. xii : 9, lo ; Epli. ii: 10; Gal. v: 22-25. God's concern in such acts may be explained as composed of three elements, (a.) He perpetually protects and preserves the human person with the capacities which He gave to it naturally, (b.) He graciously renews the dispositions by His immediate, almighty will, so as to incline them, and keep them inclined by the Holy Ghost, to the spirit- ually good, (c.) He providentially disposes the objects and truths before the soul thus renewed, so that they become the occasional causes of holy volitions freely put forth by the sancti- fied will. Thus God is, in an efficient sense, the intentional author of the holy acts, and of the holiness of the acts, of His saints.

But, the question of His concern in the evil acts of free God's agency in Man's agents (and the naturally indifferent,) is sins. Is there a con- more difficult. The Dominican Scholastics, ^^^^^^- or Thomists, followed by some Calvinistic

Reformers, felt themselves constrained, in order to uphold the efficiency and certainty of God's control over the evil acts of His creatures, to teach their doctrine of the physical concursus of God in all such acts, (as well as in all good acts, and physical causes). This is not merely God's sustentation of the being and capacities of creatures ; not merely a moral influence by truths or motives providentially set before them ; not merely an infusion of a general power of acting to which the creature gives the specific direction, by his choice alone, in each indi- vidual act ; but in addition to all this, a direct, immediate physi- cal energizing of the active power of the creature, disposing and predetermining it efficaciously to the specific act, and also enabling it thereto, and so passing over with the agency of the creature, into the action. Thus, it is an immediate, physical, predisposing, specific and concurrent influence to act. Their various arguments may be summed up in these three : that the Scripture, e. g., Gen. xlv: 7; Is. x: 15, &c. ; Acts xvii : 28; Phil, ii : 13 ; Col. i : 13, demand the concursus of God to satisfy their full meaning : That as man's esse is dependent on the per- petual, recreative efflux of God's power, so his acting must per- petually depend on God's concursus, because the creature must act according to his being. ' Under this head, for instance, Witsius may be seen, following Aquinas, arguing thus : Nothing but a first cause can act without the aid and influence of a prior

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 28/

cause. Hence, if the human will were able to produce any action of which God was not the efficient, the creature's will would hold the state of a First Cause. Again : All action pro- ceeds from powers : but the creature's powers emanate from his essence. Hence if the essence is derived, the action must also be derived. They argue, in the third place, that without the conairsiis they describe, God's providence over human acts could not be efficient and sovereign, as the Scripture teaches, and as we must infer from the doctrine of the decree, and from the certain fulfilment of prophecy.

Turrettin obviously implies, in his argument, that the rational creature's will, like a second cause in matter, is indeter- terminate to any specific effect. For he argues that a cause, thus indeterminate or indifferent must receive its determination to a specific effect, from some cause out of, and above itself, which must be active, and determinating to the specific effect. (Qu. 5, § 8, &c.)

Now, on this I remark, see here the great importance of the distinction I made (in last lecture, and on the difference of permissive and efficacious decrees) between material and rational second causes.

Again : Consider if Turrettin does not here surrender a

vital point of his own doctrine concerning the will. That point

is, that the rational will is not in eqnilibro; that volitions are

not contingent phenomena, but regular effects. Effects of

what? Sound metaphysics says, of subjective motive. The

soul (not the faculty of choice itself,) is self-determining — i. e.,

spontaneous. But this according to a law, its subjective law.

Now, to this I reply farther, (a) The doctrine that God's

sustentation is by a perpetual active efflux

It IS not revealed by ^^ creative power, we found to be unproved

consciousness. . . ^ , . , ,., , ,. .i

as to spirits, which unlike bodies, possess the

properties of true being, absolute unity and simplicity. That doctrine is only true, in any sense, of organized bodies ; which are not proper beings, but rather organized collections of a multitude of separate beings, or atoms. My consciousness tells me that I have a power of acting (according to the laws of my nature) dependent indeed, and controlled always by God, yet which is personally my own. It originates in the spring of my own spontaneity. As to the relation between personal power in us, and the power of the first cause, we know noth- ing ; for neither He, nor consciousness, tells us anything.

(b) Surely the meaning of all such Scriptures as those

referred to, is sufficiently satisfied, as well as Not required by God's ^j^^ demands of God's attributes and govern- Sovereignty. , . , , ■ , t^- .

ment, by securing these two points, rirst,

God is not the author of sin ; Second, His control over all the acts of all His creatures is certain, sovereign and efficacious ; and such as to have been determined from eternity. If a way

255 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

can be shown, in which God thus controls these sinful acts^ without this physical conciirsiis, the force of the other argu- ments for it is all removed.* May not this mode be found in this direction? Thus:

God's eternal purpose as to evil acts of free agents is more How, then, does God than barely permissive; His prescience of it Secure Men's Free is more than a scientia media of what is, to ■^^'^' Him, contingent. It is a determinate pur-

pose effectuated in providence by means efficient, and to Him, certain in their influence on free agents. What are those means? Volitions are caused. The efficient causes of voli- tions are the soul's own dispositions ; the occasional causes are the objects providentially presented to those dispositions. Even we may, in many cases, so know dispositions as efficientfy to procure, and certainly to predict, given volitions, through the presentation of objective causes thereof An infinite under- standing may so completely know all dispositions and all their complex workings, as to foretell and produce volitions thus in every case, as we are able to do in many cases. Add to this, omnipotent, providential power, which is able to surround any soul with circumstances so adapted to his known dispositions, as infallibly to prove the occasions of given desired volitions. And the presentation of the objective inducement to do wrong; is also wrought, after the manner of God's permissive decree, by the free actions of other sinners permissively ordained. Thus : The offer of the Ishmaelitish merchants (Gen. xxxvii : 25,) to buy Joseph, was the sufficient inducement to his breth- ren's spite and cupidity. It was these subjective emotions in them, w^hich constituted the efficient motive of the crime of selling their brother. God did not himself present that induce- ment by His own immediate act or influence ; but He permis- sively ordained its presentation by the merchants. Here you have means enough to enable God to purpose and efficiently produce a given act of a free agent, without any other special conaa-sus, in the act itself, than the providential power by which He sustains the being and capacities of that soul, what- ever that power is. This, then, is my picture of the providen- tial evolution of God's purpose as to sinful acts ; so to arrange and group events and objects around free agents by His mani- fold wisdom and power, as to place each soul, at every step, in the presence of those circumstances, which. He knows, will be a sufficient objective inducement to it to do, of its own native, free activity, just the thing called for by God's plan. Thus the act is man's alone, though its occurrence is efficaciously secured by God. And the sin is man's only. God's concern in it is holy, first, because all His personal agency in arranging to

^ If a soul is not spontaneous cause, it is not responsible. If its spontaneity is above providence, it is a God !

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 289

secure its occurrence was holy; and second, His ends or pur- poses are holy. God does not will the sin of the act, for the sake of its sinfulness ; but only wills the result to which the act is a means, and that result is always worthy of His holiness. E. g. : A righteous king, besieged by wicked rebels, may arrange a sally, with a view to their righteous defeat, and the glorious deliverance of the good citizens, in which he knows the rebels will slay some of his soldiers. This slaying is sin ; the good king determines efficaciously to permit it ; not for the sake of the slaying, but for the sake of the righteous triumph of which it is part means. The death of these good soldiers is the sin of the rebels ; the righteousness of the end in view, is the king's.

It may be said, that this scheme represents God, after all,

as governing free agents by a sort of sciciitia

Is God;s mtelligence ;;^^^/^_ I reply: Let US not be scared by

herein ocienda Aleaia? ^ ■' . ^

unpopular names. It is a knowledge con- ditioned on His own almighty purpose, and His own infallible knowledge of the dispositions of creatures ; and it is, in this sense, relative. But this is not a dangerous sense. For only lay down the true doctrine, that volitions are efficiently deter- mined by dispositions, and there is, to God, no shadow of con- tingency remaining about such foreknowledge. (That was the ugly trait.) As I showed you, when explaining this scientia media, in the hands of him who holds the contingency of the will, it is illogical ; in the hands of the Calvinist, it becomes consistent.

(c) This doctrine of physical concursus neglects the proper

distinction between the power of causation Such concursus would -^^ physical bodies and in free agents. It

also commits a fatal error in making God's agency in bad acts, about as immediate and efficacious as in good acts ; and indeed very much the same. It repre- sents the soul, like a physical cause, as undetermined to action or non-action, till God's prcBciirsjis decides it to act. Of course, then, an unholy will might be equally decided by it to a holy or an unholy act ! Thus hyper-Calvinism actually betrays its own cause to the opposite party, who teach the cqidlibriiivi of the will; and contradicts Scripture, which always claims more credit and agency for God (and an essentially different agency) in the good acts, than in the evil acts, of the creature.

(d) This doctrine leads us too near to the awful verge of

Pantheism. See how readily it can be made Its tendency Panthe- ^^ \^vl(\ towards one of the very types of Ideahstic Pantheism, lately prevalent in parts of Europe. If God's efficient prcBciirsiis is essential to all the creature's acts, then, of course, it is essential to his acts of per- ception. But now, if it is not the objective world, which is the efficient cause of perceptions in our minds, but God : why 19*

290 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

should we predicate any objective world at all? The real evi- dence of its existence is lacking, and if this doctrine is true, the supposition of an objective world should be excluded by the " law of parcimony." And since the mind is not, accord- ing to this doctrine, the efficient of its own acts, why should we predicate its personality either? But, more simply stated, the road towards Pantheism is this : If there is such a universal pr<2C7irs2is, God is the only true agent in the universe. Turret- tin himself admits, that according to this scheme, God's conciir- sjis is the efficient cause of every act, and the creature's volition only the formal cause. How easy the step from this to making the creature's being a mere efflux of God's being? Do not these writers claim that the mode of the action must agree to that of the esse? Thus we have another illustration of the justice of the charge that Scholastic Realism prepared the way for modern Pantheism.

(e) Last. Like all Pantheism, it comes too near making

God the author of sin ; for it makes God an of sin!^^^Evasion.*^^"^^ immediate, intentional efficient of acts which

are sinful. The scholastics endeavour to evade this, by distinguishing between the physical entity of the act and its moral relation. God, say they, is an efficient of the entity, not of the moral evil which qualifies it. Thus : when a musician strikes an untuned harp, the sound is from him, the discord of the sound is from the disorder of the strings. When a partial paralytic essays to move his limbs, motion is from his volition; the halting or jerking is from the disease. The illus- trations are false ; for the musician's intention is to produce, not only sound, but harmonious sound, — the paralytic's, not only motion, but correct motion. God's intention embraces notonly the physical entity of the act, but its moral quality. It is not only the act as an act, but the act as sinful, which He intends to permit. For how often are the holy ends He has in view connected with the sinfulness of the act? That the dis- tinction is incorrect may be practically evinced thus : The same distinction would serve as well to justify the Jesuit doctrine of intention. Search and see. I see no way to escape the horrid consequence of making God the author of sin, except by mak- ing sinful acts immediately the acts of the sinner alone ; and this is certainly the testimony of his own consciousness. He feels that he is wholly self-moved thereto ; and hence his sense of guilt therefor.

The inadequacy of this evasion appears in that Turrettin The evasion false,be- (Qi-i- 5, § I/,) admits himself to be con- cause it gives no act strained by it to hold the deplorable dogma, moral quality A-r 5.. ^j^.^^. ^^ ^^^^^y ^^^ j^^g intrinsic moral quality

per se. He even quibbles, that the hatred of God felt by a sinner is not evil by its intrinsic nature as a simple act of will; but only by its adjuncts. Ans. The act, apart from its adjuncts,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 29 1

is either no act at all, or a different act intrinsically. There is false analysis here. Turrettin (again) is misled by instances such as these admitted ones. All killing is not murder. All smiting is not malice. All taking is not theft, &c., &c. The sophism is, that these are outward acts : effectuated through bodily members. As to the mere physical phenomenon of volitions moving bodily members, we admitted, and argued that, abstracted from its psychical antecedents and adjuncts, it has no moral quality. Proof is easy. But, in strictness of speech, the physical execution of the volition in the act of striking, &c., is not the act of soul — only the outward result thereof. The act of soul is the intent of will. In this, the right or wrong moral relation is intrinsic. Now, would not Turrettin say, that the concursus he teaches incites and directs the act of soul, and not that of the body merely ? Certainly. Thus it appears that his distinction and evasion are inadequate.

Or thus : No Calvinist will deny that the morality of an act is determined by its intention. But intention is action of soul, as truly as volition. And if a physical coiicursits is neces- sary to all action, it is so to intention. Thus God's action would be determinative of the morality of the act. In a word, these Calvinists here betray, in their zeal for this prcBcursus, that doctrine of the essential originality of the moral distinction, which they had already established ; (see Lee. xiv, § 4, and Loc. iii, Qu. i8th,) and which we shall find essential in defend- ing against Socinians, the necessity of satisfaction for guilt.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Micah. v: 2
  2. Jer. xlix: 17
  3. Dan. iv: 34
  4. Gen. xxii: 13
  5. Job v:6
  6. Jer. x:23
  7. Rom. xi: 36
  8. Gen. xlv: 7

SYLLABUS

1. Was man's person constituted of matter and spirit? Wherein consisted the " image of God" in which man was created? Wherein consisted his original right- eousness ? See

Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. lo. Dick, Lect. 40. Witsius, CEcon Feed, bk. i, ch. 2. Watson's Theo. Inst., ch. 18. Knapp, Chr. Theol., ^ 51-53.

2. Was Adam's original lighteousness con-created, or acquired by acting? State the answers of Calvinists and Pelagians, and establish the true one.

Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 9, 11; Loc. viii, Qu. i, 2; Loc. ix, Qu. 2. Hill, bk. iv, ch. I, \ 2. Dick, Lect. 40. Watson, ch. 18, g i (2). Knapp, \ 54. Thornwell, Lect. 14, pp. 394-end.

3. What was Adam's natural relation to God's law?

Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 12. Thornwell, Lect. 11 and 12. Witsius, bk. i, ch. 5, \ 22, and bk. i, ch. 4, \ 1-5. Dick, Lect. 44. Watson, ch. 18, \ i.

4. Did God place man under a Covenant of Works? And did Adam therein represent his posterity ?

Turrettin, Loc. viii, Qu. 3, 6. Witsius, bk. i, ch. 2, \ 14, &c., ch. 8, \ 31, &c. Hill, bk. iv, ch. i, \ i, 2. Dick, Lect. 44, 45. Watson, ch. 18, \ 3. Thorn- well, Lect. 12, p. 284, &c.

5. Wlaat was the condition, and what the seal of that Covenant?

Turrettin, Loc. viii, Qu. 4, 5, 7. Witsius, bk. i, ch. 3. Dick and Hill as above.

THE first three chapters of Genesis present a desideratum wholly unsupplied by any human writing, in a simple, natu- ral, and yet authentic account of man's One p5r'' °"^'' ^™"' origin. The statement that his body was cre- ated out of pre-existent mattter, and his soul communicated to that body by God, solves a thousand inquiries, which mythology and philosophy are alike incompetent to meet. And from this first father, together with the helpmeet formed for him, of the opposite sex, from his side, have pro- ceeded the whole human race, by successive generation. The unity of race in the human family has been much mooted by half-scholars in natural science of our day, and triumphantly defended. I must remit you wholly for the discussion to the books written by Christian scholars on that subject, of which I may mention, as accessible and popular, Cabell, the University Lectures, and the work of Dr. Bachman, of Charleston. I would merely point out, in passing, the theological importance of this natural fact. If there are men on earth not descended from Adam's race, then their federal connection with him is broken. But more, their inheritance in the protevangeliuin, that the "seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head," is also interrupted. The warrant of the Church to carry the Gospel to that people is lacking ; and indeed all the relations of man to man are interrupted as to them. Lastly, the integrity of the Bible as the Word of God is fatally affected ; for the unity of 292

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

293

the race is implied in all its system, in the whole account of God's dealings with it, in all its histories, and asserted in express terms. Acts xvii : 26. See Breckinridge's Theol., vol. I, ch. 3, i. For additional Scriptures, Gen. iii : 20 ; vii : 23 ; ix : I, 19 ; X : 32. Unity of race is necessary to relation to the Redeemer.

But a yet more precious part of this passage of Scripture is the explanation it gives of the state of Spirit."' ° ^ ^^ universal sin, self-condemnation, and vanity, in which we now find man ; which is so hard to reconcile with God's, attributes. The simple, but far reach- ing solution is, that man is not in the state in which he was made by his Creator. The record tells us that God " formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Here, in the simple language of a primeval people, the two-fold nature of man, as matter and spirit, is asserted. As the popular terms

of every people have selected breath, n^"n, Tivebim, sphitus, to

signify this inscrutable substance, thinking spirit, the narrative describes 'the communication of the soul to the body by the act of breathing. And, it may be added, the view to which rea- son led us, as to the spirituality of man's thinking part, is con- firmed by all Scripture. Here, Gen. ii : 7. The body is first formed from one source, and then the spirit is communicated to it from a different one. God is thus the Father of our spirits. Heb. xii : 9. At death, the two substances separate, and meet different fates. Eccl. xii : 7 ; 2 Cor. v : 1-8 ; Phil, i : 22, 23. The body and soul are in many ways distinguished as different substances, and capable of existing separately. Matt, x ; 28 ; Luke viii : 55. The terms body, soul and spirit, are twice used as exhaustive enumerations of the whole man. i Thess. v : 23 ; Heb. iv : 12.

Next : we learn that man, unlike all lower creatures, was

,^ , , „ formed in the " image of God " — "after His Image of God what ? ,., >> -ri 1 -j t. • u •

^ likeness. ihe general idea here is obvi-

ously, that there is a resemblance of man to God. It is not in sameness of essence, for God's is incommunicable ; nor like- ness of corporeal shape, for of this God has none ; being immense. This image has been lost, in the fall, and regained, in redemption. Hence, it could not have consisted in anything absolutely essential to man's essence, because the loss of such an attribute would have destroyed man's nature. The likeness which was lost and restored must consist, then, in some accidens. The old Pelagians and Socinians represented the image as grounded in man's rationality, and consisting especially in His dominion over the animals and the world. The Reformed divines represent it as grounded upon man's rationality and im- mortality, which make him an humble representation of God's

294 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

spiritual essence ; but as consisting especially in the righteous- ness and true holiness, in which Adam was created. The dominion bestowed upon man is the appropriate result of his moral likeness to his Maker. Thus Witsius — The image con- sisted antccedenter, in man's spiritual and immortal nature •: formaliter, in His holiness ; conseqiienter, in His dominion. The first was the precious tablet; the second was the image drawn on it ; the third was the ray shining from it. But we substantiate the definition of God's image ; as to its first partic- ular, by Gen. ix : 6, where we learn that the crime of murder owes its enormity chiefly to this, that it destroys God's image. See also, Jas. iii : 9. But since the fall, man has lost his origi- nal righteousness, and his likeness to God consists only in his possession of an intelligent spiritual nature. Dominion over the earth and its animals was plainly conferred. Gen. i : 26, 27 ; Ps. viii, and it is implied that this feature made man, in an humble sen e, a representative of God on the earth, in Gen. i : 26, 27, from the connection in which the two things are mentioned, and in I Cor. xi : 7, from the idea there implied, that the authority given him by God over the other sex makes him God's represen- tative. But the likeness consists chiefly in man's original moral perfection, the intelligence and rectitude of his conscience. This is argued from the fact that the first man, like all the other works of creation, was " very good." Gen. i : 31. This " good- ness " must, in fairness, be understood thus, that each created thing had in perfection those properties which adapted it to its designed relations. Man is an intelligent being, and was cre- ated to know, enjoy and glorify God as such; hence his moral state must have been perfect. See also, Eccl. vii : 29. And that this was the most important feature of God's likeness, is evident ; because it is that likeness which man regains by the new creation. See Rom. xii : 2 ; Col. iii : 10 : Eph. iv : 24. This also, is the likeness which saints aspire after, which they hope to attain when they regain Adam's original perfection. Ps. xvii : 15 ; i Jno. iii : 2.

This all-important likeness of man to his God justifies that trait of all our natural theology, which is

necessarily anthropomorphic. In the seventh lecture, this trait is admitted, and the insufficiency which it causes in any theology merely natural, as a means of sanctifica- tion and redemption, is disclosed. But our opponents would use this concession to destroy both natural theology and revealed. Our rational self-consciousness is the medium by which we con- ceive God and His attributes. We know power and causation first in our own conscious volitions : and thus we step to a First Cause. We know spirit, as contrasted with matter, first, as the subject of the functions of consciousness: and thus we know that God, the cause of all intelligence, and the omniscient,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 295

must also be spirit. We conceive His knowledge and wis- dom, as revealed in His works, after the mode of our thinking to our final causes, but without the limitations of our thoughts. Our conscience is the revelation to us of God's rectitude. It was only by the method of our control over natural powers, that we could construe God's providence. And thus came all our natural knowledge of God.

It is from this feature that worthlessness has been charged upon it all. But this is simply preposterous. ^^But not therefore un- ^gt it be considered whether it is not the inevitable condition of knowledge to man that it shall be anthropomorphic ? What is this, but to say, that man's knowledge must be human, in order to be his ? For if he is to have any cognition, it must be according to the forms of his intelligence. This unreasonable cavil is evidently grounded in this illusion ; that a symmorphism of the divine science to our forms of thought must be a transformation : that the ppopositions of this science must be so changed, in order to translate them into our modes of cognition, as to be invalid. Now, if we knew that the human intelligence was wholly hete- rogeneous from the divine, there would be some ground for this suspicion. But suppose it should turn out that the human intelligence is, in its lower sphere, homogeneous with the divine, then the symmorphism of knowledge implies no corruption of its truth. Does the opponent exclaim, that we must not * beg the question,' by assuming that homogeneity? We reply; Neither shall he beg the question in denying it. But when the inspired witness, the Bible, comes to us, with attestation, (by miracles, prophecies, &c.,) exactly suited to the forms of the human un- derstanding, and assures us that our spirits are made in the likeness of God's, all fear of our theology, as made invalid by anthropomorphism, is removed. And especially when we are shown the Messiah, as the image of the invisible God, and hear Him reason, we have a complete verification. It would appear that this simple, primeval narrative was so framed, as to give the answer to a subtile modern cavil, and to satisfy this funda- mental difficulty.*

If we attempt to define the original righteousness of man's

nature, we must say that, first, it implies the

Adam's Natural right- possession of those capacities of under-

eousness denned. t' • 1 1 1 1

standmg and conscience, and that knowl- edge, which were necessary for the correct comprehension of all his own moral relations. This equally excludes the extrava- gant notion, that he was endued by nature with all the knowl- edge ever acquired by all his descendants ; and its opposite, that his soul commenced its existence in an infantile state. Second ; Man's righteousness consisted in the perfectly narmo-

* See a similar view, in the recently published Lectures of Dr. ThomwelL Vol. I pp. 112-113.

296 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

nious concurrence of all the dispositions of his soul, and, conse- quently, of all his volitions prompted thereby, with the decis- ions of his conscience, which in its turn was correctly directed by God's holy will. His righteousness, was then, a natural and entire conformity, in principle and volition, w-ith God's law, Adam was doubtless possessed of free will, (Confession, ch, iv, § 2 ; ix, § 2,) in the sense which, we saw, was alone appropriate to any rational free agent ; that in all his responsible, moral acts, his soul was self-determined in its volitions — i. e., he chose according to his own understanding and dispositions, free from co-action. But his will was no more self-determining, or in eqiiilibric, than man's will now. (We saw that such a state would be neither free, rational, nor moral). Just as man's dispositions now decisively incline his will, in a state of nature, to ungodli- ness, so they then inclined it to holiness. This inclination was prevalent and complete for the time, yet not immutable, as the event proved. But this mutability of will did not imply any infirmity of moral nature peculiar to man, as comparei^ with angels. The fate of the non-elect angels shows that it is the inevitable result of man's being finite. Impeccability is the property of none but the Infinite, and those to whom He com- municates it by His indwelling wisdom and grace. How a creature soul could be prevalently and completely holy in its dispositions, and yet mutable, is a most abstruse problem, to which we will return in due place.

Was Adam's righteousness, in his estate of blessedness, native or acquired ? The Calvinist answers, 2. Adam's righteous- -^ ^^^ native ; it was conferred upon him as ness concreated. . • 1 7 » • r 1 ■ -n 1 1

the origmal liabitus 01 his will, by the cre- ative act which made him an intelligent creature. And the exercise of holy volitions was the natural effect of the princi- ples w'hich God gave him. This is the obvious and simple meaning of our doctrine ; not that righteousness was so an essential attribute of man's nature, that the loss of it would make him no longer a human being proper.

The Pelagians of the 5th century, followed by modern Socinians, and many of the New England and Socinkns^^'''^'''"' school, assert that Adam could only have received from his Maker a negative inno- cency ; and that a positive righteousness could only be the result of his own voluntary acts of choice. Their fundamental dogma is, that nothing has moral quality except that which is voluntary (meaning by this, the result of an act of choosing). Hence, they infer, nothing is sin, or holiness, but acts of voli- tion. Hence, a con-created rectitude of will would be no righteousness, and have no merit, because not the result of the person's own act of choice. Hence, also, they say a priori dispositions have no moral quality, except where they are acquired habitudes of disposition resulting from voluntary acts.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 297

Of this kind was Adam's holy character, they say. And so, in the work of conversion, it is irrational to talk of being made righteous, or of receiving a holy heart ; man must act right- eousness, and make by choosing a holy heart.

This is the most important point in the whole subject of

man's original state and relation to God's law. ^Inta-mediate Romish g^f^j.^ proceeding, however, to its discussion,

it may be well to state the evasive ground assumed by the Romish Church, between the two. In order to gain a semi-Pelagian position, without avowing the above odious principles, they teach that the first man was holy, ab initio ; but that original -righteousness was not a natural habitus of his own will, but a supernatural grace, communicated to him temporarily by God. According to Rome, concupiscence is not sin, and it existed in holy Adam; but it has a perpetual tendency to over-, ride the limits of conscience, and thus become sin. So long as the supernatural grace of original righteousness was communi- cated to Adam, he stood ; the moment God saw fit to withdraw it, natural concupiscence became inordinate, sin was born, and man fell. The refutation of this view of man's original recti- tude will be found below, in the proof that concupiscence is sin, and that man was made by nature holy. We understand that it is implied, if man had not sinned, he would have transmitted that holy nature to his posterity ; surely supernatural grace does not " run in the blood " ? The idea is also derogatory to God's wisdom and holiness, that He should make a creature and endue it with such a nature as was of itself inadequate to fulfil the end of its existence as a moral being, and so construct its propensities, that sin would be the normal, certain and immedi- ate result of their unrestricted action ! It represents God as creating imperfections.

(a) We assert against the Pelagians, that man was positively Proof of our view, holy by nature, as he came from God's hand ; Pelagian argument am- because the p'lea that nothing can have moral "biguous. quality which is involuntary, is ambiguous

and sophistical. That which occurs or exists against a man's positive volition can be to him neither praise nor blame. This is the proposition to which common sense testifies. It is a very different proposition to say that there cannot be moral desert, "because no positive volition was exercised about it. (The Pela- -gian's proposition.) For then there could be no sins of omis- sion, where the ill-desert depended on the very fact that the man wholly failed to choose, when he should have chosen. The truth is, man's original dispositions are spontaneous ; they sub- sist and operate in him freely ; without co-action ; and only because of their own motion. This is enough to show them responsible, and blame- or praiseworthy. A man always feels good or ill desert according as his spontaneous feelings are in a right or wrong state, not according to the mode or process by

298 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

which they came into that state. Men strangely forget that their free-agency may as spontaneously prefer, and thus make them responsible for, a state which was original, as though this preference of theirs had originated it. Here is a man who was born with carroty hair : he is absurdly proud of its supposed beauty, and prefers it to any other. Every one decides that he thereby exhibits precisely the same bad taste, as though, having been gifted by nature with the finest brown hair, he had pro- duced the unsightly color with a hair-dye. So, he who, natu- rally having a perverse disposition, delights in, prefers, and fosters it, is as truly spontaneous and responsible therein, as though he had himself acquired it in the impossible way the Pelagians imagine.

Dr. Thorn well (Lecture xix. p. 395,) seems to teach, that the inability of the will, if truly natural, in the sense of being a part of man's original nature, would destroy his responsibility. He defends the proposition that the sinner is now responsible, notwithstanding his thorough inability of will, on the exclusive ground that it is self-procured by man. This statement must be regarded as incautious. It is very true, that a holy God is incapable of creating any rational creature with a wrong dispo- sition. But to fallen man his evil habitus, or inability of will, is now natural : it is connate, and is the regular incident of man's nature. In what sense can it be said of an individual man now, that his inability of will is self-procured ? Only as he fell in Adam. And it is hard to see how Dr. T. can save his own true position that the sinner is responsible, notwithstanding his total inability of will, without implying a personal unity of each sin- ner and Adam. His statement is unhappy, again : because it jeopardizes the clearness of the all-important distinction (see Confession, Chap, ix.) between the destruction of man's essentia,. by the loss of any constitutive faculty (which would end his responsibility,) and that total " aversion" from the right, which results in an entire inability, and yet leaves to the sinning agent his inalienable spontaneity.

(b.) We have already seen, from Gen. i : 26, 27 ; i :-3i ; Eccles. vii : 29, that man was made in the view."^''"''''''^'''''"' in^age of God, and that this image- was most essentially his original righteousness. God's word, therefore, sustains our view. The same thing is seen in the language of Scripture concerning the new creation, regen- eration. This, the Bible expressly affirms, is a " creation unto righteousness." Eph. iv : 24; ii : 10 ; Rom. viii : 29 : Eph. i :4. It is a supernatural change of disposition, wrought not merely through motive, but by almighty power. Eph. i : 19, 20 ; ii : 1-5. It determines not only the acts, but the will. Ps. ex : 3 ; Phil, ii : 13. And God has Himself suggested the analogy on which our argument proceeds, by choosing the term "new creation," to describe it. Hence, as the new-born soul

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 299

is made holy, and does not merely act a holiness, the first man was made righteous. Let me remark here, that ancient and modern Pelagians virtually admit the justice of this, by deny- ing the possibilty of such a regeneration by grace ; and on the same grounds ; that a state of holiness not primarily chosen by the will, could not be meritorious. On their theory the human soul of Christ would not have had a positive righteousness by nature. But see Luke i : 35.

(c.) Their theory is contradicted by common sense in this : that a moral neutrality, in a being who had the itv Pos"ible^ ^" ^^ ' rational faculties and the data for compre- hending the moral relations in a given case^ is impossible ; and if possible, would be criminal. It is the very nature of conscience, that when the moral relations of a given case are comprehended, her dictum is immediate, inevitable and categorical. The dispositions also must either be disposed actively, one way or the other, or they are not dispositions at all. They cannot be in equilibrio, any more than motion can be quiescent. And does not every sane conscience decide that if Adam, on comprehending his moral relations to his infinitely good, kind, glorious and holy Father, had simply failed to choose His love and service instantly ; if he had been capable of hesitation for one moment, that would itself have constituted a moral defect, a sin ?

(d.) Had Adam's will been in the state of equilibrium de- No Principle of right scribed, and his moral character initially neg- choice would have ative, then there would have been in him been present. nothing to prompt a lioly choice ; and the

choice which he might have made for that which is formally right would have had nothing in it morally good. For the intention determining the volition gives all its moral quality. Thus he could never have chosen or acted a righteousness, nor initiated a moral habitude, his initial motive being non- moral.

(e.) These false principles must lead, as Pelagians freely Corruption of In- avow, to the denial of original depravity in fants refutes Pelagian- infants. That which does not result from an ^^™- act of intelligent choice, say they, cannot

have moral quality ; so, there can be no sin of nature, any more than a natural righteousness. But that man has a sin of nature, is proved by common experience, asserted by Scripture, and demonstrated by the fact that all are " by nature the children of wrath," and even from infancy suffer and die under God's hand.

(f ) If the doctrine be held that a being cannot be created righteous without choice, then those that die in infancy cannot be redeemed. For they cannot exercise as yet intelligent acts of moral choice, and thus convert themselves by choosing God's service. The Pelagian does indeed virtually represent

300 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the infant as needing no redemption, having no sin of nature. But the Bible and experience prove that he does need redemp- tion : whence, on Pelagian principles, the damnation of all who die in infancy is inevitable.

Last, the theory of the Pelagian is utterly unphilosophical in this, that it has no experimental basis. It NJpacts.'^'''^'^ "^' is a mere hypothesis. No human being has ever existed consciously in the state of moral indifference which they assume ; or been conscious of that initial act of choice, which generated his moral character. Surely all scientific propositions ought to have some basis of experimental proof! Ethics should be an inductive science.

Any intelligent moral creature of God is naturally bound 3. Natural Rela- ^^ lovc Him with all his heart, and serve Him tion of Creature to w^tli all his strength, i. e., this obligation is God's Will. j^q|- created by positive precept only, but

arises out of the very perfections of God, and the relations of the creature, as His property, and deriving all his being and capacities from God's hands. Doubtless Adam's holy soul recognized joyfully this obligation. And doubtless his under- standing was endowed with the sufficient knowledge of so much of God's will as related to his duties at that time. It may be very hard for us to say how much this was. Now, it is com- mon for divines to say, that a creature cannot merit anything of God. This has struck many minds as doubtful and unfair, whence it is important that we should properly distinguish. In denying that a creature of God can merit anything, it is by no means meant that the holy obedience of a creature is before God devoid of good moral character. It possesses praiseworthiness, if holy, and undoubtedly receives that credit at God's hands. The fact that it is naturally due to God does not at all deprive it of its good quality. But the question re- mains : What is that quality ? Obviously, it is that the natural connection between holiness and happiness shall not be severed, as long as the holiness continues ; that, as the obedience ren- dered is that- evoked by the natural relation to the Creator's will ; so the desert acquired is of that natural well-being appropriate to the creature's capacities. The guarantee to the creature for this, in the absence of any ^^ositive covenant from God, is simply the divine goodness and righteousness, which render God incapable of treating a holy being worse than this. The creature is God's property.

But it is equally obvious that such obedience on the crea-

ture's part cannot bring God in his debt, to The Creature Can- j j . 1 • • ^

not Merit. condescend to him in any way, to communi-

cate Himself as a source of supernatural blessedness, or stability in holiness, or to secure his natural well- being longer than his voluntary and mutable obedience is con- tinued. And the reasons are, simply that none of the crea-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3OI

ture's obedience can be supererogatory, he owing his utmost at any rate ; and that all his being and capacities were given by God, and are His property. I cannot bring my benefactor in my debt by giving him something which he himself lent to me ; I am but restoring his own. This is what is intended by the Confession of Faith, ch. vii, § i. The Scriptures clearly sup- port it. Ps. xvi : 2 ; Job, xxxv : 7, 8 ; Acts, xvii : 24, 25 ; Ps. 1:9-12; Luke xvii : 7-10.

But it is equally clear that mortality and the connected ills But Death would ^^ ^^^^ could not have been the natural lot of not have Entered with- man, irrespective of his sin and fall, as the °^* ^'"* ' Pelagians and Socinians pretend. Their mo-

tive in assuming this repulsive tenet, is, to get rid of the argu- ment for original sin, presented by the sufferings and death of infants who have committed no overt sin. They say that dis- solution, to an organized animal body, is as natural and unavoid- able as the fall of the leaves from the trees. They claim, that only the monadic and indiscerptible can be exempt from that fate ; and that it is the natural counterpart of generation, and of animal nutrition. I reply, that, if they only used these arguments to prove that animal bodies are not self-existent, they would have reason. But we must remember that the hu- man person, whose dissolution is now in question, is a responsi- ble agent, not a vegetable, whose destiny in this particular a righteous God has to decide judicially. From this point of view, it is too plain to need argument, that the providence of that same almighty power which framed Adam's body at first, was abundantly able to continue its organic existence indefin- itely. It is not necessary to speculate as to the mode ; but we have only to suppose God suspending the molecular forces which now war against the vital force ; and the holy man's body might have all the permanency of a diamond, or lump of gold. But the main point is : that to a moral person, dissolu- tion is not a mere chemical result, but a penal misery. Does this befall a responsible agent absolutely guiltless ? The asser- tion is abhorrent to the justice and goodness of God. Physical evil is the appointed consequence of moral evil, and the sanc- tion threatened for the breach of God's will. To suppose it appointed to an obedient moral being, irrespective of any guilt, overthrows either God's moral attributes or His providence, and confounds heaven with earth. Second : It is inconsistent with that image of God and that natural perfection, in which man was created. The workmanship was declared to be very good : and this doubtless excluded the seeds of its own de- struction. It was in the image of God ; and this included immortality. But last, the Scriptures imply that man would neither have suffered nor died if he had not sinned, by appoint- ing death as the threat against transgression. And this, while it meant more than bodily death, certainly included this, as is-

302 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

evident from Gen. 111:17-19. See, then, Gen. n:iy; Rom. v: 12; vi : 23 ; Matt, xix : 17; Gal. iii : 12. These last evi- dently have reference to the covenant of works made with Adam : and they explicitly say, that if a perfect obedience were possible, (as it was with Adam before he fell), it would secure eternal life.

God's act in entering into a covenant with Adam, if it be

substantiated, will be found to be one of pure Covenant of Works i i • tt • u^. • ti

Gracious. grace and condescension. He might justly

have held him always under his natural rela- tionship ; and Adam's obedience, however long continued, would not have brought God into his debt for the future. Thus, his holiness being mutable, his blessedness would always have hung in suspense. God, therefore, moved by pure grace, condescended to establish a covenant with His holy creature, in virtue of which a temporary obedience might be graciously accepted as a ground for God's communicating Himself to him, and assuring him ever after of holiness, happiness, and com- munion with God. Here then is the point of osculation be- tween the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, the law and the Gospel. Both offer a plan of free justification, by which a righteousness should be accepted, in covenant, to acquire for the creature more than he could strictly claim of God ; and thus gain him everlasting life. In the covenant of grace, all is "ordained in the hand of a mediator," because man's sin had else excluded him from access to God's holiness. In the covenant of works, no mediator was required, because man was innocent, and God's purity did not forbid him to con- descend to him. But in both, there was free grace ; in both a justification unto life ; in both, a gracious bestowal of more than man had earned.

Under the natural relation of man to law, there was room neither for mercy in case of transgression, nor for assured blessedness. This relation was modified by the Covenant of works, in three respects. First, a temporal probation was accepted, in place of an everlasting exposure to a fall under the perpetual legal demand. Second: The principle of repre- sentation was introduced by which the risques of the probation were limited to one man, acting for all instead of being indef- initely repeated, forever, in the conduct of each individual. Third, a reward for the probationary obedience was promised, which, while a reward for right works, was far more liberal than the works entitled to ; and this was an adoption of life, transferring man from the position of a servant to that of a son, and surrounding him forever with the safeguards of the divine wisdom and faithfulness, making his holiness indefectible. Thus, the motive of God in this covenant was the same infinite and gratuitous goodness, which prompted him to the covenant cf grace.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Gen. 111:17-19

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3O3

The evidences that God placed Adam under a Covenant of 4. Covenant of Works, Works are well stated by the standard What? Proof of its In- authors. A covenant, in its more technical stitution. f^Q\ sense, according to Turrettin, implies : i.

Two equal parties. 2. Liberty to do or not do the covenanted things before the covenant is formed. In this sense there could be no covenant between God and man. But in the more gene- ral sense of a conditional promise, such a transaction was evi- dently effected between God and Adam, and is recorded in Gen. ii : i6, 17. There are — ist, the two parties. God pro- posing a certain blessing and penalty on certain conditions, and man coming under those conditions. It has been objected that it was no covenant, because man's accession to it was not optional with him : God's terms were not a proposal made him, but a command laid upon him. I reply, if he did not have an option to accede or not, he was yet voluntary in doing so ; for no doubt his holy will joyfully concurred in the gracious plan. And such compacts between governors and governed are by no means unusual or unnatural. Witness all rewards promised by masters and teachers, for the performance of tasks, on certain conditions. 2. There was a condition : the keeping of God's command. 3. There was a conditional promise and threat : hfe for obedience, and death for disobedience. That the prom- ise of life was clearly implied is shown by the fact itself, that life is the correlative of death, which was threatened in the covenant. For the soul not to live, is to die; not to die, is to live. We argue next, from the natural law of conscience, wkich expects life for obedience, as death for transgression. Did this fatherly dispensation to Adam suspend the favorable part of this universal law, and thus place him in a worse, instead of a more hopeful condition ? Heb. xi : 6, tells us " he that cometh unto God must beUeve that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Here we have a general principle of service : surely Adam's introduction into Paradise did not revoke it. Third: During his rectitude, Adam evi- dently enjoyed the use of the " Tree of Life," which was a sacramental pledge to him of the promised result. And when the covenant was broken, his partaking of this seal was forbid- den, as utterly inconsistent with the new state of things. Unless Adam had had before him the promise of life for obedience, this would have been idle. Fourth: That the correlative promise of life was given, appears from the relation of Adam and Christ, the second Adam. Both were representative heads. The covenant which feU through in Adam's inept hands, was successfully accomplished in Christ's. But the result through Him was a "justification of life." And in the frequent con- trasts which the Epistles of Paul draw between the justification of works and of faith, it is never hinted that the impossibility of the former now arises from anything in the covenant of

304 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

works, but only from man's sin and lost estate. See Rom. viii :

3, 4. And last : the Scriptures in expounding the nature of the

Covenant of Works, expressly say that life would have been the

result of perfect obedience. Let the student consult Levit.

xviii : 5 ; Deut. xxx : 15 ; Ezek. xx : 11 ; Matt, xix : 17; Rom.

ii : 6, 7 : vii : 10 ; X : 5 ; Gal. iii : 12. The fact that in some of

these places the offer of life through the covenant of works was

only made in order to apply an argument ad hojnineni to the

self-righteous Jews, does not weaken this evidence. For the

reason that life cannot, in fact, be gained through that covenant,

is not that it was not truly promised to man in it, and in good

faith ; but that man has now become through the fall, morally

incapable of fulfilling the conditions. Nor is the argument in

favor of our position weakened surely by the other fact ; that

the Apostle's reference to this covenant of works promising life

for obedience, was designed to shut up sinners who have broken

it, under condemnation. '

In this transaction Adam represented his posterity as well

as himself. This appears from i. The parallel Adam a Kepresenta- 1 • 1 • j i_ , r-^ • . 1 a 1

tive. which is drawn between Christ and Adam.

Rom. v; 12-19; i Cor. xv : 22, 47. In almost every thing they are contrasted, yet Christ is the second Adam. The only parallelism is in the fact that they were both repre- sentative persons. 2. The fact proves it, that the penalty de- nounced on Adam has actually taken effect on every one of his posterity. See Gen. v : 3. 3. The Bible declares that sin, death, and all penal evil came into the world through Adam. Rom. v: 12 ; i Cor. xv: 22. 4. Although the various other com- munications of the first three chapters of Genesis are appa- rently addressed to Adam singly, we know that they applied equally to his posterity, as the permission to eat of all the fruits of the earth ; the command to multiply and replenish the earth ; the threatened pains of child-bearing; the curse of the ground, and the doom of labor, &c.

Every one is familiar with the Bible account of the condi- tion of this covenant: the eating or not eat- of thecovenanL" ^^^ "^S^ °^ ^^^^ ir\i\t of a tree called the " tree of knowledge of good and evil." This prohi- bition was, obviously, a " positive command." Our divines are accustomed to argue, very reasonably, that when God's design was to 'ipply a naked test of the principle, obedience, a positive command is better adapted to the end than a perpetual moral one. For the latter class have usually rational grounds in the interests and affections of men ; but the ground of the positive precept is only the rightful authority of God. A more difficult point is : Whether this single, positiv^e precept substituted, during Adam's probation, all the moral law. In other words : Was this the only command Adam now had to observe : the only one by the breach of which he could fall ? Presbyterians answer this in

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. v: 12

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

305

the negative. We regard all the moral law known to Adam is represented in this command, as the crucial test of his obedi- ence to all. The condition of his covenant was perfect compli- ance, in heart and act, with all God's revealed law. This is manifest from the unreasonableness of any moral creature's exemption from the law of God, which is immutable. It appears also, from all the representations of the covenant of works, quoted in a previous paragraph ; where the obedience required is to the whole law. It appears, finally, from this obvious view : that a consistent sense of moral obligation was the only thing which could have given to Adam's compliance with the positive prohibition, any moral significance 'or worth.

The seal of the covenant is usually understood to be the tree of life, whose excellent fruit did not, indeed, medically work immortality in Adam's frame, but was appointed as a symbol and pledge, or seal of it. Hence, when he had forfeited the promise, he was debarred from the sign. The words of Gen. iii : 22 are to be understood sacramentally.

Why is it supposed that an obedience for a limited time

would have concluded the Covenant trans-

The Probation Tern- , • -, t^i • i.u 4- u j.

,^, „.,,.„ action ? I he answer is, that such a covenant,

with an indefinite probation, would have been no covenant of life at all. The creature's estate would have been still forever mutable, and in no respect different from that in which creation itself placed him, under the first natural obli- gation to his Maker. Nay, in that case man's estate would be rightly called desperate ; because, he being mutable and finite, and still held forever under the curse of a law, which he was, any day, liable to break, the probability that he would some day break it would in the infinite future mount up to a moral certainty. The Redeemer clearly implies that the pro- bation was to be temporary, in saying to the young Ruler: " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." If the pro- bation had no limits, his keeping them could never make him enter in. Here again, Adam's representative character unavoid- ably implies that the probation was temporary. His personal action under the trial was to decide whether his posterity were to be born heirs of wrath, or adopted sons of God. Had his probation been endless, their state would have been wholly unsettled. Only a moments' reflection is needed, to show the preposterous confusion which would arise from that state of facts. Adam's trial still continuing thousands of years after Seth's birth, for instance, and after his glorification, if the father then fell, the son's glorification must have been revoked.

20*

SYLLABUS

1. What is sin ? Is guilt its essence, or adjunct ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 6. Cat. Qu. 14. Turrettin, Log. ix, Qu. i, 3. Knapp, ^ 73. Muller, "Christian Doctrine of Sin," ch. 2, 3. Bp. Butler's Sermons, 11-14. Thornwell, Lect. 14, pp. 347, 389. Dr. Wm. Cunningham, Historical Theol., ch. 19, § 5.

2. What was Adam's first sin? How did it affect his own moral state and rela- tions to God ? How could a will prevalently ><^holy form its first unholy volition ?

Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 6, 7, 8. Hill, bk. iv, ch. i. Dick, Lect. 47. Knapp, § 85. Watson, ch. 18, § 11. Witsius, bk. i, ch. 8, g i, 13. Thornwell, Lect. 10, pp. 240-247. Butler's Analog}'. Muller, Chr. Doc. of Sin, bk. ii.

3. Who was the tempter ? What the sentence on him ?

Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 7, ^ 9, &c. Dickj Lect. 44. Hill and Watson as above.

4. What were the effects of Adam's fall on his posterity, (a) according to the Pelagian theory ; (b) the lower Arminian theory ; (c) the Wesleyan ; and (d) the Calvinistic theory ?

Augustine, Vol. ii, Ep. 899, c, Vol. viii. De Natura et Gratia, and Libri Duo adv. Pelagius et Ccelcstius. Hill as above. Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 9,

10. Dick, Lect. 46, 47. Cunningham, Hist. Theol., ch. 10, § , 12, and ch. 19, § 3. Thornwell, Lect. 13. Whitby's Five Points. Knapp, | 79, 10. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 18, | 3, 4. Wesley on Original Sin.

5. Are the souls of Adam's posterity directly created or generated ? And how is depravity propagated in them ?

Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 12, and Loc. v, Qu. 13. Baird's Elohim Revealed, ch.

11. Sampson on Hebrews, ch. 12, v. 9. Literary and Evangel. Magazine, of Dr. Jno. H. Rice, vol. iv. p. 285, &c. Watson, ch. 18, ^ 4. Augustine, De Origine Animarnm.

"\X/'E have now reached, in our inquiries, the disastrous place, where sin first entered our race. Let us therefore pause, and ascertain clearly what is its nature.

The most characteristic Hebrew word for it is n^LOH^

ITT-: Sin what? which has the rudimental idea of missing the

aim. The Greek, huxioria is strikingly similar, expressing nearly the same idea, of failure of designed con- junction. The Latin, pcccatum is supposed by some to be a modification of pec7iatum, brutishness, and by others, of pelli- catum, moral adultery. These words suggest, what will be found true upon analysis, that the common abstract element of all sins is a privative one, lack of conformity to a standard. If this is so, then farther, sin can only be understood, when viewed as the antithesis to that standard, a law of right, and to the righteousness which is conformed thereto. The student may be reminded here, in passing, of that speculation which some of the Reformed divines borrowed from the Latin Scholastics, by which they made sin out a negation. Their reason seemed to be mainly this : That God, as universal First Cause, must be the agent of all that has entity ; and so, all entities must be per se good. Hence sin, which is evil, must be no entity, a 306

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3O7

negation. This doctrine received such appHcations as this: That even in adultery or murder, the action per se, so far as it is action only, is good ; the negative moral quality is the evil. We see here, the mint, from which was coined that dangerous distinction, by which the same divines sought to defend God's efficacious prcznirsus in sinful acts of creatures. (See Lect. XXV, end.) To a plain mind, the escape from this confusion is easy. Sins are, indeed, not entities, save as they are acts or states of creatures, who are personal entities. When we speak of sins in the abstract, if we mean anything, we speak of the quality common to the concrete acts, which we literally call sins : the quality of sinfulness. What now, is a quality, abstracted from all the entities which it qualifies? Not neces- sarily a negation, but a mere abstraction. As to the quibble, that God is the agent of all that has entity ; we reply : Predi- cate the real free-agency of the sinning creature ; and we shall have no philosophic trouble about that truth of common sense, that the actor is the agent of his own sinful act; and not God.

Some have supposed that the just distinction between ''sins of commission and omission" must overthrow the defini- tion of sinfulness as always a privative quality. This, say they, may be true of sins of omission ; but then it cannot be true of sins of commission, which are positive. This is invalid, for the basis of that distinction is different. Both classes of sins are equally privative, and equally real. The difference is, that sins of commission are breaches of prohibitory commands, and sins of omission of affirmative precepts. In either case, the sinful- ness arises out of evil motive, and this is, in either case, positive ; while its common quality is discrepancy from the standard of right. And now, if any other proof of our definition is needed, than its consistency, we find it in i Jno. iii : 4, where the Apos- tle gives this as his exact definition of sin ; arguing against a possible Antinomian tendency to excuse sins in believers, as venial, that all sin is lawless; '// b-nao-'ta iaziu -q dvouia — "The sin is the discrepancy from law." (Scil. vofio:^ Ot(fj.)

Dr. Julius Miiller, in his important work, " The Christian Doctrine of Sin," revives, in a new form, the erroneous doc- trine of Jon. Edwards, resolving sin into selfishness. Seizing upon the declaration of our Savior, that love to God is the first and great command, on which the whole law depends, he resorts to the admitted fact, that sin must be the antithesis of righteousness ; and concludes that the former must therefore be love of self. Why may we not conclude, from the same pro- cess, that since all duty is included in the love of God, all sin will be included in hatred of God ? (instead of love of self.) This gives us a more plausibly exact antithesis.

But more seriously, the student is referred to the remarks in Lecture ix, upon Edwards' theory, and to Bp. Butler's Ser- mons. We now add, with especial reference to Miiller's spec-

308 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ulation, these points of objection. If all sin is resolved into self-love as its essence, then is not all self-love sinful ? If he answers, No, then I reply : So there is a sinful, and a righteous self-love? He must say, Yes. Then, I demand that he shall give me the differentiating element in the sinful self-love, which makes it, unlike the oilier self-love, morally evil. Will he give me self-love for this differentiating element ? This is but mov- ing in a circle. Again : it would follow, that if some self-love is lawful, and yet self-love is the essence of all sin, it must become sin, by becoming too great ; and thus sin and holiness would differ only in degree ! Once more, if this theory is to be carried out with any consistency, it must teach, that the act which is intended by me to promote my own well-being, can only be virtuous provided I sincerely aim at that well-being (which happens to be my own) from motives purely impersonal and disinterested. In other words, to do any act aright, pro- motive of my own welfare, I must do it, not at all for the sake of myself, but exclusively for the sake of God and my fellows, as they are interested in my welfare. We will not dwell on the question, whether any man ever seeks his own good from so sublimated a motive ; we only point to this resultant absurdity; all one's fellows, acting in this style of pure disinterestedness, are directly seeking his welfare ; and in this is their virtue. How can it be then, that it is always sinful for him to seek that same end ?

Does anyone ask, into what common type all sin may be resolved ? We answer : Into that of sin. We have no other definition than this : Sin is sin. Or sin is the opposite of holi- ness ; sin is discrepancy from an absolutely holy law. If this is so, and if the idea of moral good is one of ultimate sim- plicity, and so, incapable of definition in simpler terms, we are to accept the same view as to sin. All attempts to reduce it to some simpler element, as they have been prompted either by an affectation of over-profundity, or by an over-weening desire to unify the functions of man's soul, have also resulted in confusion and error.

The next question concerning the nature of sin would be, whether it is limited to acts of will, or includes also states of moral propensity and habit. The answer given by the Calvin- ist is familiar to you. " Sin is not being, or not doing what God requires." Not only, then, are intentional acts of will con- trary to law, sinful ; but also the native disposition to these acts, and the desires to commit them not yet formed into voli- tions. This raises the oft mooted question, whether " concu- piscence is sin ? " This question has been already debated from a rational point of view, in Lect. xii, § i, and the cognate one, in the xxvi, § 2. It is only necessary now, to add a sum- mary of the Scriptural argument. The Bible, in many places applies moral terms to the abiding habitudes of the soul, both

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3O9

acquired and native. See Ps. li : 5 ; Iviii : 3 ; Matt, xii : 35, or 33; vii : 17. James i : 15 says: "Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin." Rome, indeed, quotes this text as implying that concupiscence is not itself sin ; for it must " conceive," must be developed into another form, in order to become sin. Bu^t James here evidently uses the word sin in the sense of sins of act. So he uses " death," the mature result of "sin when it is finished," in the sense of the final spiritual death, or the second death ; for many other Scriptures assure us that a state of sin is a state of death. He would rather teach us, in this text, that concupiscence and actual sin, being mother and daughter, are too closely related not to have the same moral nature. But the most conclusive text is the 1 0th Commandment. See this expounded by Paul, Rom. vii : 7. He had not known coveting, except the law had said, " Thou shalt not covet." And it was by this law, that he was made to know sin. How could he more expressly name concupiscence as sin ?

There is, however, a distinction, which is needed here, for the consistent establishment of this doctrine, coveting is often defined as "desiring the possession of another." Now, it is clear, that there are such desires, and such thoughts, w hich are not the sin of concupiscence. The intellectual apprehension of natural good, not possessed by me, but attainable, cannot be sinful always ; for if so, I could never put forth a normal and rational effort for any good. So a certain desire for such good must also be innocent; else I could never have a lawful motive for effort, tending to the advancement of my own wel- fare. A very practical instance may evince this. A godly minister needs a useful horse. He sees his neighbour possess- ing the horse which suits his purposes. He righteously offers, and endeavors, to buy him. But, as a reasonable free agent, he could not have proposed to part with a valuable considera- tion for this horse, unless he had had, first, an intellectual judg- ment of the animal's fitness for his uses ; and second, a desire to enjoy its utility. But he had these sentiments while the horse was still another man's ? Is it, then neccessary for one to break the loth Commandent in order to effect an equitable horse-trade ? The answer is : These sentiments in the good man have not yet reached the grade of evil concupiscence. This sinful affection then, is not merely desire for attainable good ; but desire for an attainment conditioned wrongfully ; desire still harboured — though not matured into a purpose of will — while seen in the conscience to be thus unlawfully con- ' ditioned. Thus, for instance, the moment this good man's desire to possess the useful animal verged into a craving to gain it unfairly, as by payment in spurious money, or untruthful <iepreciation of its market value, that moment concupiscence was born. This distinction removes all just objections to the

3IO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Scripture teaching. It is useful also, in explaining how an impeccable Redeemer could be "tempted of the devil," and yet wholly without sin. Had this holy soul been absolutely imper- vious to even the intellectual apprehension of attainable good, and to the natural sentiment arising on that apprehension, he would not have been susceptible of temptation. But he had these normal traits. Hence, he could'be tempted, and yet feel not the first pulse of evil concupiscence..

What Turrettm calls potential guilt is the intrinsic moral

^ . , ill-desert of an act or state. This is of the

Guilt, what? r ,1 • -i. • • J J

essence oi the sm : it is indeed an insepara- ble part of its sinfulness. Actual guilt is obligation to punish- ment. This is the established technical sense of the word among theologians. Guilt, thus defined, is obviously not of the essence of sin ; but is a relation, viz., to the penal sanction of law. For if we suppose no penal sanction attached to the dis- regard of moral relations, guilt would not exist, though there were sin. This distinction will be found important.

The first sin of our first father is found described in Gen.

iii : I — 7, in words which are familiar to- 2. Man's First Sin. 1-1. • a.- u -j ^1

every one. ihis narrative has evidently

some of that picturesque character appropriate to the primeval age, and caused by the scarcity of abstract and definite terms in their language. But it is an obvious abuse to treat it as a mere allegory, representing under a figure man's self-deprava- tion and gradual change : for the passages preceeding and fol- lowing it are evidently plain narrative, as is proved by a hundred references. Moreover, the transactions of this very passage are twice referred to as literal (2 Cor. xi : 3 ; i Tim. ii : 14), and the events are given as the explanation of the peculiar chastise- ment allotted to the daughters of Eve.

The sin of Adam consisted essentially, not in his bodily

act, of course ; but in his .intentions. Popish Ekment'^^ ''^ ^'''^ theologians usually say that the first element

of the sin of his heart was pride, as being awakened by the taunting reference of the Serpent to his dependence and subjection, and as being not unnatural in so exalted a being. The Protestants, with Turrettin, usually say it was unbelief; because pride could not be naturally suggested to the creature's soul, unless unbelief had gone before to oblit- erate his recollection of his proper relations to an infinite God ; because belief of the mind usually dictates feeling and action in the will ; because the temptation seems first aimed (Gen. iii : i) to produce unbelief, through the creature's heedlessness ; and because the initial element of error must have been in the understanding, the will being hitherto holy.

How a holy will could come to have an unholy volition at

Tf -IT ,-.• first, is a most difficult inquirv. And it is

If Volitions are cer- 11, , r • ' r o 1

tainly Determined, much harder as to the first sui ot Satan, tnaa

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 3II

How could a Holy of Adam, because the angel, hitherto per- Wrong Volition ? ^^^^ ^^^^> ^^^ ^^ tempter to mislead him, and had

not even the bodily appetites for natural good which in Adam were so easily perverted into concupis- cence. Concupiscence cannot be supposed to have been the cause, pre-existing before sin ; because concupiscence is sin, and needs itself to be accounted for in a holy heart. Man's, or Satan's, mutability cannot be the efficient cause, being only a condition slue qua non. Nor is it any solution to say with Tur- rettin, the proper cause was a free will perverted voluntarily. Truly ; but how came a right will to pervert itself while yet right ? And here, let me say, is far the most plausible objection against the certainty of the will, which Arminians, &c., might urge far more cunningly than (to my surprise) they do. If the evil dispositions of a fallen sinner so determine his volitions as to ensure that he will not choose spiritual good, why did not the holy dispositions of Adam and Satan ensure that they would never have a volition spiritually evil ? And if they somehow chose sin, contrary to their prevalent bent, why may not depraved man sometime choose good?

The mystery cannot be fully solved how the first evil

choice could voluntarily arise in a holy soul ;

but we can clearly prove that it is no sound reasoning from the certainty of a depraved will to that of a holy finite will. First : a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infi- nite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and. fallible attention of the soul against sin. This was righteously withheld from Satan and Adam. Second : while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God's will, constitutes a disposition or volition wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferri- ble that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted ; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. The most probable account of the way sin entered a holy breast first, is this: An object was apprehended as in its mere nature desirable ; not yet as unlaw- ful. So far there is no sin. But as the soul, finite and fallible in its attention, permitted an overweening apprehension and desire of its natural adaptation to confer pleasure, to override the feeling of its unlawfulness, concupiscence was developed. And the element which first caused the mere innocent sense of the natural goodness of the object to pass into evil concupis- cence, was privative, viz., the failure to consider and prefer God's will as the superior good to mere natural good. Thus nat- ural desire passed into sinful selfishness, which is the root of all evil. So that we have only the privative element to account for. When we assert the certainty of ungodly choice in an

312 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

evil Will, we only assert that a state of volition whose moral quality is a defect, a negation, cannot become the cause of a positive righteousness. When we assert the mutability of a holy will in a finite creature, we only say that the positive ele- ment of righteousness of disposition may, in the shape of defect, admit the negative, not being infinite. So that the cases are not parallel : and the result, though mysterious, is not impossible. To make a candle positively give light, it must be lighted ; to cause it to sink into darkness, it is only necessary to let it alone : its length being limited, it burns out.

Adam's fall resulted in two changes, moral and physical. Effects of Sin in The latter was brought on him by God's Adam— Self-Deprava- providence, cursing the earth for his sake, ^°"- and thus entailing on him a life of toil and

infirmities, ending in bodily death. The former was more immediately the natural and necessary result of his own con- duct ; because we can conceive of God as interposing act- ively to punish sin, but we cannot conceive of Him as interpos- ing to produce it. It has been supposed very unreasonable that one act, momentary, the breach of an unimportant, positive precept, should thus revolutionize a man's moral habitudes and principles, destroying his original righteousness, and making him a depraved being. One act, they say, cannot form a habit. We will not answer this, by saying, with Turrettin, that the act virtually broke each precept of the decalogue ; or that it was a "universal sin;" nor even by pleading that it was an aggrava- ted and great sin. Doubtless it was a great sin ; because it violated the divine authority most distinctly and pointedly declared ; because it did it for small temptation ; because it was a sin against great motives, privileges, and restraints. There is also much justice in Turrettin's other remarks, that by this clear, fully declared sin, the chief end of the creature was changed from God to self; and the chief end controls the whole stream of moral action directed to it ; that the authority on which all godliness reposes, was broken in breaking this one command ; that shame and remorse were inevitably born in the soul ; that communion with God was severed. But this terrible fact, that any sin is mortal to the spiritual life of the soul, may profitably be farther illustrated.

Note, that God's perfections necessitate that He shall be

the righteous enemy and punisher of trans- b/o7e SinT""'''^ ^°'' gression. Man, as a moral and intelligent

being, must have conscience and moral emo- tions. One inevitable effect of the first sin, then, must be that God is made righteously angry, and will feel the prompting to just punishment. (Else not a holy ruler!) Hence, He must at once withdraw His favour and communion (there being no Me- diator to satisfy His justice.) Another inevitable efiect must be, the birth of remorse in the creature. The hitherto healthy

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 313

action of conscience must ensure this. This remorse must be attended with an apprehension of God's anger, and fear of His punishment. But human nature ahvays reciprocates, by a sort of sympathy, the hostihty of which it knows itself the object. How many a man has learned to hate an inoffensive neighbour, because he knows that he has given that neighbour good cause to hate him ? But this hostility is hostility to God for doing what He ought ; it is hostility to righteousness ! So that, in the first clearly pronounced sin, these elements of corruption and separation from God are necessarily contained in germ. But God is the model of excellence, and fountain of grace. See how fully these results are illustrated in Adam and Eve. Gen. iii : 8, &c. Next ; every moral act has some tendency to foster the propensity which it indulges. Do you say it must be a very slight strength produced by one act ; a very hght bond of habit, consisting of one strand ! Not always. But the scale, if slightly turned, is turned : the downhill career is begun, by at least one step, and the increase of momentum wiU surely occur, though gradually. Inordinate self-love has now become a prin- ciple of action, and it it will go on to assert its dominion. Last, we must consider the effects of physical evil on a heart thus in incipient perversion ; for God's justice must prompt Him to in- flict the bodily evils due to the sin. Desire of happiness is instinctive ; when the joys of innocence are lost, an indemnifi- cation and substitute will be sought in carnal pleasures. Misery developes the malignant passions of envy, petulance, impatience, selfishness, revenge. And nothing is more depraving than de- spair. See Jer. ii : 25 ; xviii : 12.

What a terrible evil, then, is Sin ! Thus the sentence, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," carried its own execution. Sin, of itself, kills the spiritual life of the soul.

The true tempter of Adam and Eve was undoubtedly the

evil angel Satan, although it is not expressly

3. Satan the Tempter. ^^.^ ^^ -^ ^^^ narrative. A serpent has no

speech, still less has it understanding to comprehend man's moral relations and interests, and that refined spiritual malice which would plan the ruin of the soul. It is said, " the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field," as though this natural superiority of animal instincts were what enabled it to do the work. A moment's thought, however, must convince us that there is a deeper meaning. Moses, speaking for the time as the mere historian, describes events as they appeared to Eve. The well known cunning of the serpent adapted it better for Satan's use, and enabled him to conceal himself under it with less chance of detection. The grounds for regarding Satan as the true agent are the obvious allusions of Scripture. See Jno. viii: 44; 2 Cor. xi : 3 ; 1 Thess. iii : 5 ; i Jno. iii: 8; Rev. xii : ■9, and XX : 2. The doom of the serpent is also allusively applied to Christ's triumph over Satan. Col. ii: 15; Rom. xvi : 20 ;

314 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Heb. ii : 14; Is. Ixv : 25. It is also stated in confirmation, by Dr. Hill, that this was the traditionary interpretration of the Jews, as is indicated, for instance, in Wis. ii : 23, 24; Ecclus. XXV : 24, and the Chaldee paraphrast on Job xx: 4, 6. Turret- tin supposes that God's providence permitted the employment of an animal as the instrument of Satan's temptation, in order that mankind might have before them a visible commemoration of their sin and fall.

I propose to state the Pelagian theory with some degree of 4. Effect of Adam's fulness, and more methodically than it would Sin on His Posterity— perhaps be found Stated in the writings of its Pelagian Theory. ^^^j^ early advocates, in order to unfold to

the student the nexus between original sin and the whole plan of redemption. The Pelagian believes that Adam's fall did not directly affect his posterity at all. Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was created, one of innocence, but not of positive righteousness. There was no federal transaction, and no imputation, which is, in every case, incompatible with justice. There is no propagation of hereditar}^ depravity, which would imply the generation of souls ex traduce, which they reject, j^ytA^ Man's will is not only free from coaction, but from moral cer-"^l (yvk tainty, i. e., his volitions are not only free, but not decisively caused, otherwise he would not be a free agent.

(b.) If this is so, whence the universal actual transgression of adult man ? Pelagianism answers, from concupiscence, which exists in all, as in Adam before his sin, and is not sin of itself, and from general evil example.

(c.) If man has no moral character, and no guilt prior to intelligent choice, whence death and suffering among those who have not sinned ? They are obliged to answer : These natural evils are not penal, and would have befallen Adam had he not sinned. They are the natural limitations of humanity, just as irrationality is of beasts, and no more imply guilt as their neces- sary cause.

(d.) Those, then, who die in infancy, have nothing from which they need to be redeemed. Why then baptized ? Pela- gianism answered, those who die in infancy are redeemed from nothing. If they die unbaptized, they would go to a state called Paradise, the state of natural good,' proceeding from natural innocence, to which innocent Pagans go. But baptism would interest them in Christ's gracious purchase, and thus they would inherit, should they die in infancy, a more positive and assured state of blessedness, called the Kingdom of Heaven.

(e.) All men being born innocent, and with equilibrium of will, it is both physically and morally possible that any man might act a holy character, and attain Paradise, or " eternal life," without any gospel grace whatever. The chances may be bad, on account of unfavourable example, and temptation, amidst which the experiment has to be made. But there have

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 315

been cases, both under the revealed law, as Enoch, Job, Abel, Noah (who had no protevangeluini) ; and among Pagans, as Numa, Aristides, Socrates ; and there may be such cases again. Nor would God be just to punish man for coming short of per- fection unless this were so.

(f.) Now, as to the theory of redemption : As there can be no imputation of Adam's guilt to his people, so neither could there be of Christ's people's guilt to Him, or of His righteous- ^ ness to them. But sins are forgiven by the mercy of God in 1^ Christ (without penal satisfaction for them), on the condition of trust, repentance, and reformation. The title of the believer to g^^ a complete justification must then be his own obedience, and./^-^ that a sinless one. But this is not so exalted an attainment as Calvinists now regard it. Concupiscence is not sin. Moral quality attaches only to actual volitions, not to states of feeling prompting thereto ; and hence, if an act be formally right, it is wholly right ; nor does a mixture of selfish and unselfish motives in it make it imperfectly moral ; for volition is necessarily a thing decisive and entire. Henoe, a prevalent, uniform obedi- ence is a perfect one ; and none less will justify, because justifi- cation is by works, and the law is perfect. But as equilibrium of will is essential to responsibility, any shortcoming which is morally necessitated, by infirmity of nature, or ignorance, thoughtlessness, or overwhelming gust of temptation, contrary to the soul's prevalent bent, is no sin at all. See here, the germ of the Wesleyan's doctrine of sinless perfection, and of the Jesuit theory of morals.

Since a concreated righteousness would be no righteous- ness, not being chosen at first, so neither would a righteousness wrought by a supernatural regeneration. The only gracious influences possible are those of co-operative grace, or moral suasion. Man's regeneration is simply his own change of pur- pose, as to sin and holiness, influenced by motives. Hence, faith and repentance are both natural exercises.

(g.) The continuance of a soul in a state of justification is of course contingent. A grace which would morally necessi- tate the will to continued holy choices, would deprive it of its free agency.

(h.) God's purpose of election, therefore, while from eter- nity, as is shown by His infinite and immutable wisdom, knowl- edge and power, is conditioned on His foresight of the way men would improve their free will. He elected those He fore- saw would persevere in good.

The whole is a consistent and well-knit system of error, proceeding from its -jionov (/'sboo:;.

Among those who pass under the general term, Arminians,

two different schemes have been advanced ;

i.iZer!'' '^^'°"''- one represented by Whitby, the other by

Wesley and his Church. The former admit

3l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

that Adam and his race were both much injured by the fall. He has not mdeed lost his equilibrium of will for spiritual good, but he has become greatly alienated from God, has fallen under the penal curse of physical evil and death, has become more ani- mal, so that concupiscence is greatly exasperated, and is more prone to break out into actual transgression. This is greatly increased by the miseries, fear, remorse, and vexation of his mortal state, which tend to drive him away from God, and to whet the' envious, sensual and discontented emotions. These influences, together with constant evil example, are the solution of the fact, that all men become practically sinners. This is the state to which Adam reduced himself; and his posterity share it, not in virtue of any federal relation, or imputation of Adam's guilt, but of that universal, physical law, that like must generate like. In that sense, man is bOrn a ruined creature.

The Wesleyans, however, begin by admitting all that a „, , Moderate Calvinist would ask, as to Adam's

loss of original righteousness in the Fall, bondage under evil desires, and total depravity. While they misinterpret, and then reject the question between mediate and immediate imputation, they retain the orthodox idea of impu- tation, admitting that the legal consequences of Adam's act are visited upon his descendants along with himself. But then, they say, the objections of severity and unrighteousness urged against this plan could not be met, unless it be considered as one whole, embracing man's gracious connection with the second Adam. By the Covenant of grace in Him, the self-determining power of the will, and ability of will are purchased back for every member of the human family, and actually communi- cated, by common sufficient grace, to all, so far repairing the effects of the fall, that man has moral ability for spiritual good, if he chooses to employ it. Thus, while they give us the true doctrine with one hand, they take it back with the other, and reach a semi-Pelagian result. The obvious objection to this scheme is, that if the effects of Adam's fall on his posterity are such, that they would have been unjust, if not repaired by a redeeming plan which was to follow it, as a part of the same system, then God's act in giving a Redeemer was not one of pure grace (as Scripture everywhere says), but He was under obligations to do some such thing.

The view of the Calvinists I purpose now to state in that

„ , . . . . comprehensive and natural mode, in which

Calvinistic theory. ,, ,^,.. ^ ,.

ail sound Lalvmists would concur. Lookmg

into the Bible and the actual world, we find that, whefeas Adam

was created righteous, and with full ability of will for all good,

and was in a state of actual blessedness ; ever since his fall,

his posterity begin their existence in a far different state.

They all show, universal ungodliness, clearly proving a native,

prevalent, and universal tendency thereto. They are born

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 317

spiritually dead, as Adam made himself. And they are obvi- ously, natural heirs of the physical evils and death pronounced on him for his sin. Such are the grand facts. Now Calvin- ists consider that it is no unauthorized hypothesis, but merely a connected statement, and inevitable interpretation of the facts, to say : that we see in them this arrangement ; God was pleased, for wise, gracious, and righteous reasons, to connect the destiny of Adam's posterity with his probationary acts, so making him their representative, that whatever moral, and whatever legal condition he procured for himself by his conduct under proba- tion ; in that same moral and that same legal condition his pos- terity should begin to exist. And this, we say, is no more than the explanation necessarily implied in the facts themselves.

But before we proceed to the detailed discussion of this, an inquiry, a subject of the greatest intricacy

5. Orimn of Souls. a ■. . ■ i- • tj •

History of opinions. ^^^ mterest, arises as a jorelunmary : How is this connection transmitted ; what is the actual tie of nature between parents and children, as to their more essential part, the soul ? Are human souls generated by their parents naturally? Or are they created directly by God, and sent into connection with the young body at the time it acquires its separate vitality ? The former has been called the theory of Traducianism ; [ew traduce^ the latter, of creation. After Origen's doctrine of pre-existent human souls had been generally surrendered as heretical (from the times of Chrysos- tom, say 403,) the question was studied with much interest in the early Church. Tertullian, who seems first to have formally stated Adam's federal headship, was also the advocate of the ex traduce theory. But it found few advocates among the Fath- ers, and was especially opposed, by those who had strong ten- dencies to what was afterwards called Pelagianism, as favouring original sin. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have been almost alone among the prominent Greek Fathers who held it. So perhaps did Ambrose among the Latins ; but when Jerome asserts that the ex traduce view prevailed generally among the Western Christians, he was probably in error. Augustine, the great establisher of Original Sin, professed himself undecided- about it, to the end. It may be said however, in general, that in history, the ex ti'aduce theory has been thought more favour- able to original sin, and has been usually connected with it, till modern times ; while Creationism was strenuously advocated by Pelagians. If the Traducian theory can be substantiated, it most obviously presents the best explanation of the propagation of sin.

I shall state the usual arguments, /w and con, indicating as I go along my judgment of their force.

I. The Traducianists assert that by some inexplicable law

Aro-uments of Tra- ^^ generation, though a true and proper one,

ducianists — From parents propagate souls, as truly as bodies ;

Scripture. ^^^ ^j.^ \}a\xs, the proper parents of the whole

3l8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

persons of their children. They argue, from Scripture, that Gen. ii : 2 states, " on the seventh day God ended the work which He had made, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work," &c. Hence, they infer, God performs since, no proper work of immediate creation in this earth. This seems hardly valid ; for the sense of the the text might seem satisfied by the idea, that God now creates nothing new as to species. With a great deal more force, it is argued that in Gen. i : 25- 28, God creates man in His own image, after His own likeness, which image is proved to be not corporeal at all, but in man's spirituality, intelligence, immortality, and righteousness. In Gen. V : 3, " Adam begat a son in his own Hkeness, after his image." How could this be, if Adam's parental agency did not produce the soul, in which alone this image inheres ? Surely the image and likeness is in the same aspects. See also Ps. li : 5 ; Job, xiv:4,; Jno. iii:6, &c. The purity or impurity spoken of in all these passages is of the soul, and they must therefore imply the propagation of souls, when so expressly stating the propagation of impurity of soul.

They also argue that popular opinion and common sense

clearly regard the parents as parents of the and"! topLtor whole person. The same thing is shown by

the inheritance of mental peculiarities and family traits, which are often as marked as bodily. And this cannot be accounted for by education, because often seen where the parents did not live to rear the child ; nor by the fact that the body with its animal appetites, in which the soul is encased, may be the true cause of the apparent hereditary likeness of souls ; for the just theory is, that souls influence bodies in these things, not bodies souls ; and besides, the traits of resemblance are often not only passional, but intellectual. Instances of con- genital lunacy suggest the same argument. Lunacy is plausi- bly explained as a loss of balance of soul, through the undue predominance of some one trait. Now, these cases of congen- ital lunacy are most frequently found in the offspring of cous- ins. The resemblance of traits in the parents being already ■great, ''breeding in and in " makes the family trait too strong, and hence derangement. But the chief arguments from reason are : if God creates souls, as immediately as He created Adam's or Gabriel, then they must have come from His hand morally pure, for God cannot create wickedness. How, then, can de- pravity be propagated ? The Bible would be contradicted, which so clearly speaks of it as propagated ; and reason, which says that the attachment of a holy soul to a body cannot defile it, because a mere body has no moral character. Creationists answer : the federal relation instituted between Adam and the race, justifies God in ordaining it so that the connection of the young, im- mortal spirit with the body, and thus with a depraved race, shall be the occasion for its depravation, in consequence of

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Col. ii: 15
  2. Job xx: 4

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

319

imputed sin. But tlie reply is, first, it is impossible to explain the federal relation, if the soul of each child (the soul alone is the true moral agent), had an antecedent holy existence, inde- pendent of a human father. Why is not that soul as independ- ent of Adam's fall, thus far, as Gabriel was ; and why is not the arrangement, which implicates him in it, just as arbritary as though Gabriel were tied to Adam's fate ? Moreover, if God's act in plunging this pure spirit into an impure body is the im- mediate occasion of its becoming depraved, it comes very near to making God the author of its fall. Last : a mere body ,^ has no moral character, and to suppose it taints the soul is mere /) .^

Gnosticism. Hence, it must be that the souls of children are -

the offsprings of their parents. The mode of that propagation is inscrutable ; but this constitutes no disproof, because a hun- dred other indisputable operations natural of law are equally inscrutable ; and especially in this case of spirits, where the nature of the substance is inscrutable, we should expect the manner of its production to be so.

2. On the other hand, the advocates of creation of souls

argue from such texts as Eccl. xii : 7 ; Is. ■ationitr^'^ ^ ° ^^" ^^^^ • ^^ 5 Zech. xii : I ; Heb. xii : 9, where our

souls are spoken of as the special work of God. It is replied, and the reply seems to me sufficient, that the language of these passages is sufficiently met, by recogniz- ing the fact that God's power at first produced man's soul im- mediately out of nothing, and in His own image ; that the continued propagation of these souls is under laws which His Providence sustains and directs ; and that this agency of God is claimed as an especial honour, (e. g. in Is. Ivii : 16,) because human souls are the most noble part of God's earthly kingdom, being intelligent, moral, and capable of apprehending His glory. That this is the true sense of Eccl. xii : 7, and that it should not be strained any higher, appears thus : if the lan- guage proves that the soul of a man of our generation came immediately from God's hand, like Adam's, the antithesis would equally prove that our bodies came equally from the dust, as immediately as Adam's. To all such passages as Is. Ivii : 16; Zech. xii : i, the above general considerations apply, and in addition, these facts : Our parents are often spoken of in Scrip- ture as authors of our existence likewise ; and that in general terms, inclusive of the spirit. Gen. xlvi : 26, 27 ; Prov. xvii : 21 ; xxiii : 24; Is. xlv : 10. Surely, if one of these classes of texts may be so strained, the other may equally, and then we have texts directly contradicting texts. Again, God is called the Creator of the animals, Ps. civ : 30, and the adorner of the lilies. Matt, vi : 30 ; which are notoriously produced by propa- gation. In Heb. xii : 9, the pronoun in " Father of our spirits," is unauthorized. The meaning is simply the contrast between the general ideas of " earthly fathers," and " heavenly father."

320 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

For if you make the latter clause, "Father of spirits" mean Creator of our souls, then, by antithesis, the former should be read, fathers of our bodies ; but this neither the apostle's scope permits, nor the word adn^ which does not usually mean, in his language, our bodies .as opposed to our souls ; but our natural, as opposed to our gracious condition of soul.

Again : Turrettin objects, that if Adam's soul was created, and our's propagated, we do not properly bear his image, i Cor. XV : 49, nor are of his species. The obvious answer is, that by the same argument we could not be of the same cor- poreal species at all ! Further, the very idea of species is a propagated identity of nature. But the strongest rational ob- jections are, that a generative process implies the separation of parts of the parent substances, and their aggregation into a new organism ; whereas the souls of the parents, and that of the offspring are alike monads, indiscerptible, and uncom- pounded. Traducianism is therefore vehemently accused of materialist tendencies. It seems to me that all this is but an argunientimi ad ignorantiam. Of course, spirits cannot be gen- erated by separation of substance and new compoundings. But whether processes of propagation may not be possible for spiritual substance which involve none of this, is the very ques- tion, which can be neither proved nor disproved by us, because we do not comprehend the true substance of spirit.

The opponents might have advanced a more formidable ^ ^ objection against Traducianism : and this is

Gravest Obiection ,i , j-S; li. r i.i. i.i t

against Traducianism. the true difficulty of the theory. In every case of the generation of organisms, there is no production of any really new substance by the creature- ^ parents, but only a reorganizing of pre-existent particles. But we believe a soul is a spiritual atom, and is brought into exist- ence out of non-existence. Have human parents this highest creative power? With such difficulties besetting both sides, it , , will be best perhaps, to leave the subject as an insoluble mys-/^^' tery. What an opprobrium to the pride of human philosophy, that it should be unable to answer the very first and nearest question as to its own origin !

The humble mind may perhaps find its satisfaction in this Bible truth : That whatever may be the adjustment adopted for the respective shares of agency which the First Cause and second causes have in the origin of an immortal, human soul ; this fact is certain (however unexplained) that parents and chil- dren are somehow united into one federal body by a true tie of race : that the tie does include the spiritual as well as the bod- ily substances : that it is bo7ia fide, and not fictitious or sup- posititious. See Confession of Faith, ch. vi, § 3. " Root of all mankind." Now, since we have no real cognition by percep- tion, of spiritual substance, but only know its acts and effects, we should not be surprised at our ignorance of the precise

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 32 1

agency of its production, and the way that agency acts. It may not be explained; and yet it may be true, that divine power, (in bringing substance out of nihil into esse) and human causation may both act, in originating the being and properties of the infant's soul !

]\Iay not this insoluble question again teach us to appre- hend a great truth, which we are incompetent to comprehend ; that there is such a reality as spiritual generation, instanced in the eternal generation of the Word, in the infinite Spirit, and in the generation of human souls from the finite ? The analogy must, indeed be partial, the lower instance being beneath the higher, as the heavens are lower than the earth. In the eternal generation, the generative spirit was sole ; in the human, the parents are dual. In the former, the subsistence produced was not an individual numerically distinct from the producer, as in the latter. But it may be added, that familiar and fundamental as is our notion of our race unity, we know only in part what is connoted in it. It is possible that when " we know even as also we are known," we shall find, that Adam's creation " in the image and likeness " of God has still another meaning, not appre- hended before ; in that omnipotence endued man with a lower, ^ though inscrutable form of that power by which the eternal Father forever generates the eternal Son.

SYLLABUS

6. What is Original Sin? \Vliat is meant by total depravity? And does it affect the whole man, in all faculties and capacities?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 6. \ 3. Cat. Qu. 18. Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 8, 10, 11. Dick, Lect. 46, 47. Hill, bk. iv, ch. i. Watson, Theo. Inst., ch. 18. Thom- well, Lect. 17. •

7. How is the existence of this total depravity proved, (a) from facts; (b) from Scripture ? Are any of the secular virtues of the unrenewed genuine ?

Turrettin, Qu. 10. Dick and Hill as above. Edwards on Original Sin, pt. i, ch. I, 2, pt. ii, ch. 2, 3, pt. iii, ch. i. 2. Muller, Chr. Doc. of Sin, bk. iv, ch. I, 2. Dorner's History of Protestant Theology, Vol. i, § 2, ch. i.

8. Define and prove the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity.

Turrettin, Qu. 9, 12, 15. Dick and Hill as above. Edwards on Orig. Sin., pt. ii, ch. I. 4, pt. iii, ch. I, 3. Wines' "Adam and Christ." Dr. Wm. Cun- ningham's Hist. Theol., ch. 19, \ 2. Knapp, \ 76. Watson as above. Cal- vin and Hodge on Rom. 5th.

/C " THE sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, con- sists of the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of orig- inal righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin ; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it,"

322 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Here, as in the Larger Catechism, Original Sin (so called because native, and because the fountain of all other sin) is the general term, expressing both elements, of imputed guilt and total depravity. By many theologians it is often used for the latter specially. I discuss the latter first.

Turrettin asserts that this total depravity is not merely or negatively a carentia jnstitice oiiginalis but tiv?bfnrtowronT" Positively, an active principle of evil. But this does not contradict the definition which represented the essence of sin as discrepancy from law. The essential nature of virtue is, that it positively or affirmatively requires something ; or makes a given state or act positively obligatory on the human heart. It admits no moral neutrality ; so that the simply not being, or not doing what God requires, is Sin. But the soul is essentially active. Hence, it follows, that in a sinful state or act, the action or positivity of the sin is from the essential nature of the soul, its wrongness is from the mere absence of conformity to law. Depravity, as Pres. Edwards says, is a defective or privative quality ; yet it assumes a positive form. I would prefer to say that depravity is active as opposed to simple negation. That it is active, is proved by Turrettin from those texts which attribute effects to it, as bind- ing, deceiving, and slaying &c. Yet it is also important to dis- tinguish that it is, in its origin, privative, and not the infusion of some positive quality of evil into the soul ; in order to acquit God of the charge of being author of sin. The Bible term, kiijia-io., suggests the arrow swerving from its proper target. The swerving is privative. But this arrow does not stand still, or lie in the quiver ; it flies, and perhaps with as much momen- tum and velocity, as the arrow which hits the mark.

The same reason compels us to believe that native deprav- ity is not a substantial corruption of the soul ; But not a corruption • j , i i , , r

ofthe Soul's substance. ^- 6-, does not change or destroy any part of

its substance. For souls are, as to their sub- stance, what God made them ; and His perfections ensure His not making anything that was not good. Nor is there any loss of any of the capacities or faculties, which make up the essen- tia of the soul. Man is, in these respects, essentially what his Creator made him. Hence depravity is, in the language of metaphysics, not an attribute, but accidens of the human soul now. This is further proved by the fact that Jesus Christ assumed our very nature, at His incarnation, without which He would not be our Mediator. But surely. He did not assume moral corruption ! Last : Scripture clearly distinguishes be- tween sin and the soul, when they speak of it as defiling the soul, as easily besetting; Heb. xii : i, 2, &c. If it be asked, what then, is native depravity : if it be neither a faculty, nor the privation of one, nor of the man's essence, nor a change of sub- stance ? I reply, it is a vicious habitus which qualifies man's

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 323

active powers, i. e., his capacities of feeling and will. Although we may not be able to fully describe, yet we all know this idea of bents which naturally qualify the powers of action in all things.

The Confession states that the first man " became wholly . defiled, in all the faculties and parts of soul

and body." The seat of this vicious moral habitus is, of course, strictly speaking, in the moral propensi- ties. But since these give active direction to all the faculties and parts of soul and body, in actions that have any moral quality, it may be said that, by accommodation of language, they are all morally defiled. The conscience (the highest de- partment of rational intuitions) is not indeed destroyed ; but its accuracy of verdict is greatly disturbed by evil desire, and the instinctive moral emotions which should accompany those verdicts, are so seared by neglect, as to seem practically feeble, or dead, for the time. The views of the understanding concerning all moral subjects are perverted by the wrong pro- pensions of the heart, so as to call good evil, and evil good. Thus " blindness of mind " on all moral subjects results. The memory becomes a store of corrupt images and recollections, and thus furnishes material for the imagination ; defiling both. The corporeal appetites, being stimulated by the lusts of the soul, by a defiled memory and imagination, and by unbridled indulgence, become tyrannical and inordinate. And the bodily limbs and organs of sense are made servants of unrighteous- ness. Thus, what cannot be literally unholy is put to unholy uses. But when we thus discriminate the faculties, we must not forget the unity and simplicity of the spirit of man. It is a monad. And, as we do not conceive of it as regenerated or sanc- tified by patches ; so neither do we regard it as depraved by patches. Original corruption is not, specifically, the perver- sion of a faculty in the soul, but of the soul itself

By saying that man's native depravity is total, we do not In what sense total ? t>y any means intend that conscience is de- And are all natural vir- stroyed, for the mau's guilt is evinced by this tues spurious . very thing, that his heart prefers what con-

science condemns. Nor do we mean that all men are alike bad, and all as bad as they can be. Nor do we mean to impugn the genuineness and disinterestedness of the social virtues and charities in the ungodly. Far be it from us to assert that all the civic rectitude of an Aristides or Fabricius, all the charities of domestic love, all the nobleness of disinterested friendship among the worldly, are selfishness in disguise. But if it be allowed that many of these acts are of the true nature of virtue, how can man be called totally depraved ? We mean, first, that as to the chief responsibility of the soul, to love God, every soul is totally recreant. No natural man has any true love for God as a spiritual, holy, true, good, and righteous Sovereign. But

324 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

this being the pre-eminent duty over all others in the aggre- gate, utter dereliction here, throws all smaller, partial virtues wholly into the shade. Second : while there is something of true virtue in many secular acts and feelings of the unrenewed, which deserves the sincere approval and gratitude of fellow- men to them, as between man and man, there is in those same acts and feelings a fatal defect as to God, which places them on the wrong side of the moral dividing line. That defect is, that they are not prompted by any moral regard for God's will requi- ring them. " God is not in all their thoughts." Ps. x : 4. Let any worldly man analyze his motives, and he will find that this is true of his best secular acts. But the supreme regard ought to be, in every act, the desire to please God. Hence, although, these secular virtues are much less wrong than their opposite vices, they are still, in God's sight, short of right, and that in the most important particular. The deficiency of this carnal and social virtue receives a very practical illustration thus : The sphere of relation, in which the secular virtues of the unbe- lievers are practiced, is merely temporary. As children, hus- bands or wives, parents, neighbours, business men, they per- form many disinterested acts of moral form ; being prompted thereto by natural, social principles. In the other world, all these relations are abolished. Where then will be the rectitude of persons, who, with all their social excellencies, had no godli- ness, when God is the only good, and the immediate object of duty and intercourse ?

But third, native depravity is total, in this sense ; that it is, so far as man's self-recuperation is concerned, decisive and final. Original sin institutes a direct tendency to progressive, and at last, to utter depravity. In a word : it is spiritual death. Corporeal death may leave its victim more or less ghastly. A corpse may be little emaciated, still warm, still supple ; it may still have a tinge of colour in the cheek and a smile on its lips : it may be still precious and beautiful in the eyes of those that loved it. But it is dead, and a loathsome putrefaction approaches, sooner or later. It is only a question of time.

7. The proofs of a n^ative and total depravity toward God, are unfortunately, so numerous, that little more can be attempted in one Lecture, than a statement of their heads. They may be grouped under the two heads of experience, and Scripture statements and facts.

Adam's sin reduced him to a total depravity, as has been Depravity of the shown in a previous Lecture. But the great Race proved, ist, by law, which seems to reign throughout the law of reproduction. vegetable and sentient universe, wherever a law of reproduction reigns, is that like shall beget like. And this appears to be confirmed by Gen. v : 3 ; Job xiv : 4. Whence Adam's ruin would be a priori, a ground for expecting his pos- terity to be born depraved. There are indeed some, (as Dr,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 325

Thornwell, Review of Breckinridge, January, 1858,) who deny- that this law would naturally apply here, and attribute the result of Adam's producing-a sinful posterity, exclusively to the posi- tive, federal connection appointed for them. They urge, that the thing propagated by this natural law is the attributes of the species, not its accidents ; that by this cause any other progeni- tor between us and our first father would be as much the source of our depravity as he ; and that if the accident of Adam's fall is propagated, so ought to be the regenerate nature produced in him, and in other progenitors, by grace. This is clearly against the Confession, ch. 6, § 3, and, it seems to me, against the texts quoted. It confounds accidents in the popular sense with acci- detis, in the sense of the Logician. Very true : a man who loses an arm by accident, does not propagate one-armed children. But in the other sense of the word, it will hardly be asserted that the red colour of Devon cattle is an attribute, and not accidents of horned cattle, and the more refractory and savage temper of the wild boar an attribute of the species swine ; yet both are propagated by this law of generation, As I have before said, the properties which define a species, whether attributes or accidents, are just those which are propagated in it ; this is the very idea of species. And we may at least claim, that our progenitors, since Adam, have certainly been channels of transmission of depravity t>) us. Their agency herein was the same as Adam's toward Seth. Regenerate character does not define the species man, as a species ; and hence, is not propagated, especially as it is a character only incipient in the parents in this life. Chiefly, regenerate character is not propa- gated by parents, because it is now not a natural, but a super- natural property.

We argue native depravity from the universal sinfulness of ^^ . ,^. man, as exhibited in fact. Premise, that the

2nd. By Universal Sin. , .ir^-i- i. ii.i-u*jj

•' strength 01 this argument ought to be judged

according to the tendencies which this prevalent ungodliness would exert, not as it is in fact, but as it would be, if unre- strained by the grace and providence of God. What then is the fact ? We see all men, under all circumstances, do much that is wrong. We see the world full of wickedness, much of it enormous. We behold parents, masters, magistrates and teachers busy with multitudes of rules and laws, and a vast ap- paratus of prisons, police, armies, and penalties, striving with very indifferent success, to repress wickedness. It is no allevi- ation to this picture to say, that there are also many virtues in the world, and more correct people who leave no history, because they quietly pursue a virtuous life, than of those who make a noise in the world by sin. For the majority of men are rela- tively wicked, taking the world over ; and a truly honourable secular character, even, is the exception. Again : as we have seen, all these virtues contain a fatal defect, that of not being

326 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

performed for God's honour and pleasure ; a defect so vital, that it throws any element of goodness as to man wholly into the shade. Take the standard : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," and it will be seen that the best natu- ral man in the world never comes up to it in any one act. How then can he claim any good acts to balance against his bad ones, when there are none at all wholly in the right scale ? None that are in the right scale as to the most weighty particular.

Again : the universal result of the growth of human beings 3d. By early apostacy ^^y ^^^^^ ^^ soon as they are old enough to of children from die exhibit any moral qualities in intelligent "§^^- action, they exhibit some wrong ones. And

thenceforward, their doing some wrong things is a constant occurrence, not an occasional accident. Yea, more : infants,, before they are old enough to understand their own evil tem- pers, show wicked tempers, selfishness, anger, spite, revenge. So testifies Scripture. Ps. Iviii: 3 ; Gen. viii : 21.

Once more, we find universally, a most obdurate blindness, stupidity, and opposition concerning the

Go*d an^/RKp'o!." """S'^ °^ *^?<^- ^°"'; "'" ■ 7- S° averse are men to the spiritual service of God, that

they all, if left to themselves, postpone and refuse it, against the dictates of reason and conscience, which they partially obey in other things, against motives absolutely infinite ; and, such is the portentous power of this opposition, it overrides these motives and influences, usually, without a seeming struggle. This universal prevalence of sin has appeared in man's history, in spite of great means for its prevention : not only by the legis- lation, &c., mentioned : but by chastisements, the Flood, reli- gious dispensations, miracles, theophanies, prophecies, and the incarnation of Christ Himself

Such is a fair and moderate picture of human experience. Scripture confirms it, asserting the universal

i;th. By Scri-jture. , i i. ■ r t r r^

^ ■' " and prevalent sintuiness oi man. Gen. vi :

5 ; I Kings viii : 46 ; Eccl. vii : 20 : Ps. cxilii : 2 ; Gal. iii : 22 ; Rom. iii: 10-18; Jas. iii: i, 2; Eccl. ix : 3, &c., &c. : Ps. xiv : 2, 3 ; Jer. xvii : 9.

Now an effect requires a cause. Here is an effect, occur- ring under every variety of outward condi- Universal effects re- ^Jqu and influences, universal, constantly re- quire a cause. . ' . 111

currmg, appearmg immediately the time

arrives in the human being's life which permits it. There must be a universal cause, and that, within the human being himself We may not be able to comprehend exactly how a moral habitus subsists in an undeveloped reason and conscience ; but we are just as sure, that there is an innate germinal cause, in the human being's moral nature, for all these moral results, as we are that there is, in young apes, an innate cause why no nurture or outward circumstances will ever by any possibility

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 32/

develope one of them into a Newton. This intuition is con- firmed by Scripture. Luke vi : 43-45, &c. : Ps. Iviii : 3, with verse 4.

The universal prevalence of bodily death, with its pre- monitory ills, of bodily infirmity, a cursed

6th Argument from gj-Qund, toil and hardship, show that man's prevalence 01 the curse. ^^ .' . i , • t-i

depravity is total and native. Ihese ills are

a part of the great threatening made against Adam, and when

inflicted on him, it was in immediate connection with spiritual

death. Why suppose them severed, in any other case ? It is

vain to say that these things are not now the curse of sin, but a

wholesome chastisement and restraint, and thus a blessing in

disguise ; for if man were not depraved, he would not need

such a lesson. Why does not God see that Paradise is still

man's most wholesome state, as it was Adam's ? But from

Gen. ii : 17, onward, death is always spoken of as a punishment

for sin. Then, where death goes, sin must have gone. Rom.

v: 12; I Cor. XV ; 22. Especially the death of infants proves

it ; because they cannot understand the disciplinary effects of

suffering and death. See especially the cases of the infants of

Sodom, of Canaan, of Jerusalem, in Ezek. ix : 6. Nor can it

be said that infants die only by the imputed guilt of Adam's

sin ; for imputed guilt and actual depravity are never found

separated in the natural man.

The fact that all need, and some of all classes are inter- ested in the redemption of Jesus Christ, Re'dem^tioi;! "''"^ °^ P^o^^s that all have a sin of nature. For if they were not sinners, they would not be susceptible of redemption. Among the Redeemed are " elect infants dying in infancy," as is proved by Luke xviii : 16; Matt. xxi : 16. But infants have no actual transgressions to be redeemed from ! Socinians and Pelagians talk of a redemption in their case, which consists neither in an actual regeneration nor forgiveness, but in their resurrection, and their being endued with a gracious and assured blessedness. But this is a mere abuse of Scripture to speak of such a process as the redeeming work of Christ for any human being. For His very name and mission were from the fact that He was to save His people from their sins. Matt, i : 21 ; i Tim. i : 15 ; Mark ii : 17; Gal. ii : 21 ; iii : 21. Christ was sent to save men from perishing. Jno. iii : 16. His redemption is always by blood, because this typifies the atonement for sin. Sin is therefore co-extensive with redemption.

Again ; the application of this redemption in effectual call- . ing .is evidence of native depravity. In egenera lo"- Qj-^gj- ^\^^^ Christ may become ours, it is most repeatedly declared that we must be born again. This regen- eration is a radical and moral change, being not merely a change of purpose of life made by a volition, but a revolution

328 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of the propensities which prompt our purposes. This is proved by the names used to describe the change, a new birth, a new- creation, a quickening from death, a resurrection, and from the Agent, which is not the truth, or motive, but ahnighty God. See Jno. iii : 5 ; Eph. i : 19 to ii : 10. Now, if man needs this moral renovation of nature, he must be naturally sinful. We find our Saviour Himself, Jno. iii : 5, 6, stating this very argu- ment. The context shows that Christ assigns the sixth verse as a ground or reason for the fifth, and not as an explana- tion of the difficulty suggested by Nicodemus in the fourth. Moreover, the word ado^ means, by established Scripture usage, not the body, nor the natural human constitution ' considered merely as a nature, but man's nature as depraved morally. Compare Rom. vii : 14, 18 ; viii : 4, 7, 8, 9 ; Col. ii : 18; Gal. V : 16-24; Gen. vi : 3.

To this we may add, one of the meanings of circumcision and baptism was to symbolize this regeneration, (another, to represent cleansing from guilt by atonement.) Hence, sin is recognized in all to whom these sacraments are applied by divine command. And as both were given to infants, who had no intelligent acts of sin, it can only be explained by their having a sin of nature.

"VVe have seen how the Bible asserts a universal sinfulness , c . r i'^ practice, and how it sustained us in trac-

Qth. Scripture proofs. • . i . • i ■ ...

mg that universal sm up to its source in a sin ■of nature. We close with a fe\y specimens of other texts, which expressly assert original sin. Job xiv : 4; xv : 14-16; Prov. xxii : 15 ; Ps. Ii : 5 ; Eph. ii : 3.

The evasions to which the deniers of Original Sin are forced to resort, to escape these categorical assertions, are too numerous and contradictory to be recited or answered here. Let these texts be carefully studied in their scope and con- nection.

One of these I will notice : It has been objected that the innocence of children seems to be asserted in such places as Ps. cvi : 38; Jonah iv : 11 ; Jno. ix : 3 ; Rom. ix : 11. I ex- plain, that this is only a relative innocence. The sacred writers here recognize their freedom from the guilt of all actual trans- gression, and their harmlessness towards their fellow men dur- ing this helpless age. This, together with their engaging simplicity, dependence, and infantile graces, has made them types of innocence in all languages. And this is all the Scriptures mean.

The Hebrew word ^l^'H and the Greek, /jiyiZoiiM both o T . r , mean primarily to think, then to deem or

8. Imputation de- . , i, ^ -^. , ' ., -r , .

fined. J>Jdgc, then to impute or attribute. In this

sense the former occurs in Ps. xxxii : 2, and

the latter in Rom. iv : 6-8, as its translation. See also 2 Sam.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 329

xix : 19; 2 Cor. v : 19; Gal. iii : 6 ; Jas. ii : 23. Without going at this time into the vexed question, whether anything is ever said in Scripture to be imputed to any other than its own agent, I would define, that it is not Adam's sin which is imputed to us, but the guilt (obligation to punishment) of his first sin. This much misunderstood doctrine does not teach that Adam's act was actually made ours. This consciousness repudiates. We know that we personally did not will it. Nor does it mean that we are to feel personally defiled and blameworthy, with the vileness and demerit of Adam's sin. For us to undertake to repent of it in this sense, would be as preposterous as for us to feel self-complacency for the excellence of Christ's right- eousness imputed to us. But we are so associated with Adam in the legal consequences of the sin which closed his probation, and ours in his, that we are treated as he is, on account of his act. The grounds of this legal union we hold to be two; 1st the natural union with him as the root of all mankind ; 2d the federal relation instituted in him, by God's covenant with him. Now, we do not say that the Scriptures anywhere use the par- ticular phrase, the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to us ; but we claim that the truth is clearly implied in the transactions as they actually occurred, and is substantially taught in other parts of Scripture.

If Adam came under the covenant of works as a public

person, and acted there, not for himself

mpii a on prove . ^Iqj^^^ \^^^ foj- j^jg posterity federally, this

implies the imputation of the legal consequences of his act to them. The proof that Adam was a federal head, in all these acts, is clear as can be, from so compendious a narrative. See Gen. i : 22, 28; iii : 15, to 19; ix : 3. In the dominion assigned man over the beasts, in the injunction to multiply, in the privil- ege of eating the fruits of the earth, in the hallowing of the Sabbath, God spoke seemingly only to the first pair; but His words indisputably applied as well to their posterity. So we infer, they are included in the threat of death for disobedience, and the implied promise of Ch. ii : 17. To see the force of this inference, remember that it is the established style of Genesis. See ix : 25 to 27 ; xv : 7 ; xvi : 12 ; xvii : 20; in each case the patriarch stands for himself and his posterity, in the meaning of the promise. But this is more manifest in Gen. iii : 15-19 where God proceeds to pass sentence according to the threat of the broken Covenant. The serpent is to be at war with the woman's seed. The ground is cursed for Adam's sin. Does not this curse affect his posterity, just as it did him ? See Gen. V : 29. He is to eat his bread in the sweat of his face. Does not this pass over to his posterity ? The w^oman has her pecul- iar punishment, shared equally by all her daughters. And in the closing sentence, death to death, we all read the doom of our mortality. So plain is all this, that even Pelagians have

330 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

allowed that God acted here judicially. But Adam's posterity- is included in the judgment. No better description of impu- tation need be required.

A presumption in favour of this solution is raised by a number of facts in God's providence. He edbTS^ed'encT^™' usually connects the people and their head, the children and parents, in the consequences of the representative's conduct. Wherever there is such a political union, this follows. Nor is the consent of the persons represented always obtained, to justify the proceeding. Instan- ces may be found in the decalogue, Exod. xx : 5, the deliver- ance of Rahab's house by her faith. Josh, vi : 25 ; the destruc- tion of Achan's by his sin. Josh, vii : 24, 25 ; of the posterity of Amalek for the sins of their forefathers, i Sam. xv : 2 ; of Saul's descendants for his breach of covenant with the Gibeon- ites, 2 Sam. xxi : 1-9; of the house of Jeroboam, i Kings xiv: 9, 10; and of the generation of Jews cotemporary with Christ, Matt, xxiii : 35. So, nations are chastised with their rulers, children with their parents. It is not asserted that the case of Adam and his posterity is exactly similar; but cases bearing some resemblance to its principles show that it is not unreason- able ; and since God actually orders a multitude of such cases, and yet cannot do wrong, they cannot contain the natural injustice which has been charged upon Adam's case.

The explanation presented by the doctrine of imputation

is demanded by the mere facts of the case.

Imputation implied ^g ^^ ^^^ admitted by all except Pelagians

m man's estate. j c ■ • tx/t > • • -^ 11 ti j

and Socinians. Man s is a spiritually dead

and a condemned race. See Eph. ii : 1-5, et passim. He is obviously under a curse for something, from the beginning of his life. Witness the native depravity of infants, and their inheritance of woe and death. Now, either man was tried and fell in Adam, or he has been condemned without a trial. He is either under the curse (as it rests on him at the beginning of his existence) for Adam's guilt, or for no guilt at all. Judge which is most honorable to God, a doctrine which, although a profound mystery, represents Him as giving man an equita- ble and most favoured probation in His federal head ; or that which makes God condemn him untried, and even before he

exists.

Note here, that the lower Arminian view, in making man's Not to be accounted fallen state by nature a mere result of the for by mere law of re- law: "Like must beget like," does not production. relieve the case. For who ordained that law ?

Who placed the human race under it, as to their spirits as well as their body? Was not God able to endue a race with a law of generation which should be different in this particular, or to continue the race of man by some other plan, as successive creations ? The very act of God, in ordaining this law for man

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 33 1

whom He purposed to permit to fall, was virtually to ordain a federal connection between Adam and his race, and to decide beforehand the virtual imputation of his guilt to them. For man is not a vegetable, nor a mere animal ; but a rational, responsible person. The results of this law of reproduction prove to be, in the case of Adam and his posterity, just such as, when applied to rational agents, are penal. Now, the ques- tion is : Why does God subject souls, which have a personal liberty and destiny, to the dominion of a law which we see, in its other instances, merely vegetative and animal ? This is the moral problem. It is no solution to say, that the case is such. To say this is only to obtrude the difficulty as the solution. If then, this extension of the law of reproduction was not a righteous, judicial one and based on the guilt of Adam, it was an arbitrary one, having no foundation in justice.

But the great Bible argument for the imputation of Adam's sin, is the parallel drawn between StlfSTconisfh?"' Adam and Christ, in i Cor. xv : 21, 22, 45- 49, and Rom. v : 12-19. The latter of these passages, especially has been the peculiar subject of exegetical tortures. See, for scheme of immediate imputationists, Hodge on Rom. ; of moderate Calvinists, Baird, Elohim Rev., Chap, xiv., and Calvin /;/ loco. I shall not go over the expository arguments, for time forbids ; and they are rather the appropri- ate business of another department ; but shall content myself with stating the doctrinal results, which, as I conceive, are clearly established. In i Cor. xv : Adam and Christ are com- pared, as the first and the second Adam. In almost every thing they are contrasted ; the one earthy, the other heavenly ; the one source of death, the other of life ; yet they have some- thing in common. What can this be, except their representa- tive characters? In verse 22, Adam is somehow connected with the death of his confederated body ; and Christ is simi- larly {&a7zzn . . . o"jTco) connected with the life of his. But Christ redeems His people by the imputation to them of His right- eousness. Must not Adam have ruined his, by the imputation to them of his guilt?

In Rom. v : 12-19, ^^ is agreed by all Calvinistic interpre- ters that the thing illustrated is justification ^^Exposition of Rom. through faith, which is the great doctrine of the Epistle to Romans, denied at that time by Jews. The thing used for illustration is .Adam's federal headship and our sin and death in him, more generally admit- ted by Jews. The passage is founded on the idea of verse 14, that Adam is, the figure {ru-o^i) of Christ. And obviously, a comparison is begun in verse 12, which is suspended by paren- thetic matter until verse 18, and there resumed and completed. The amount of this comparison is indisputably this : that like as we fell in Adam, we are justified in Christ. Hence our gen-

332 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

eral argument for imputation of Adam's sin; because justifica- tion is notoriously by imputation.

2. It is asserted verse 12, and proved vs. 13, 14, that all men sinned and were condemned in Adam ; death, the estab- lished penalty of sin, passing upon them through his sin, as is proved, verse 14, by. the death of those who had no actual transgression of their own.

3. The very exceptions of vs. 15-17, where the points are stated in which the resemblance does not hold, show that Adam's sin is imputed. Our federal union with Adam, says the Apostle, resulted in condemnation and death with Christ in abounding grace. In the former case, one sin condemned all ; in the latter, one man's righteousness justifies all. The very exceptions show that men are condemned for Adam's sin.

4. In vs. 18, 19, the comparison is resumed and completed; and it is most emphatically stated that, as in Christ many are constituted righteous, so in Adam many were constituted sin- ners. Scriptural usage of the phrase xai'iiaTrj'^ac ocxatoi, and what is taught of the nature of our justification in Christ, together with the usage of the phrase or/.auoar^ C*^'^'^'' verse 18, by which it is defined, prove that it is a forensic change which is implied. Then it follows that likewise our legal relations were determined by Adam. This is imputation.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. iii: 10-18

SYLLABUS

9. Refute the evasions of the Pelagians and others from the argument for native ■depravity.

Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 10. Edwards on Orig. Sin, pt. i, ch. i, | 9.

10. Answer the objections to imputation, (a) ivoxn the Scriptures, as Deut. xxiv : 16, and Ezclc. xviii : 20; (b) from the absence of consent by us to Adam's represen- tation; (c) from its supposed injustice; (d) from God's goodness.

Turrettin, Qu. 9. Edwards, pt. iv. Stapfer, Pol. Theol., Vol. iv, ch. 17, g 78. Thornwell, Lect. 13. Knapp, ^ 76. Hodge, Tlieol., pt. ii, ch. 8, ^ 13.

11. Explain tlie theories of Mediate and Immediate Imputation and show the correct view.

Turrettin, Qu. 9.. Edwards, pt. iv, ch. 3. Stapfer, Pol. Theol., Vol. i, ch. 3, g 856-7; Vol. iv. ch. 16, and as above. South. Presb. Rev., April, 1873, Art. i. and April, 1875, Art. 6. Breckinridge's Theol., Vol. i, ch. 32. Review of Dr. Thornwell's Collected Works, Vol. i, p. 445, &c. Hodge, pt. ii, ch. 8. Baird's Elohim Revealed, ch. 14. Calv. Inst., bk. i, ch. 2, and Com. on Rom. v. Chalmers' Theo. Institutes. Princeton Review, 1830. pp. 481-503.

12. What the importance of the doctrine of Original Sin, from its connections with the other doctrines of Redemption ?

9 WE now group together the usual objections advanced • by opponents against our argument for native depravity.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 333-

It is urged, if the sinning of men now proves they have O b ■ e c t i o n s ^'^'^tive depravity, Adam's sinning would prove Adam sinned; but that he had ; since the generaHty of an effect was not originally cor- does not alter its nature. I reply, the soph- ^^P^' ism is in veiling Adam's continued and hab-

itual sinning, after he fell, with the first sin, by which he fell. Did we only observe Adam's habit of sinning, without having known him from his origin, the natural and reasonable induc- tion, so far as human reason could go, would be, that he was originally depraved. But the proof would be incomplete, because our observation did not trace this habit up, as we do in the ease of infants, to the origin of his existence. It is revela- tion which informs us how Adam became a habitual sinner, not inference. But if Adam's first sin be compared with his. descendant's perpetual sins, the difference is, that an occaional effect requires an occasional cause ; but a constant effect requires a constant cause.

Some Pelagians say, a self-determined, contingent will, is enough to account for all men's sinning. We reply : how comes a contingent force to produce always uniform effects ? If a die, when thrown, falls in various ways, its falling is contingent. But if it always fall the same way, every gambler knows it is loaded.

Pelagians offer the general power of an evil example, as the sufficient explanation why all men grow accomuforit ? ^^ ^* up sinners. Calvinists answer, (a). ¥L(Jw comes it that the example is universally evil ? This itself is the effect to be accounted for. (b). If there were no innate tendency to evil, a bad example would usually repel and disgust the holy soul. (c). All young immortals have not been subjected to an equally bad example ; witness the godly fam- ilies of Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, and the pious now, and above all, the spotless example of Jesus Christ. If the power of example were the decisive cause, these good examples (not perfect, but,) approximating thereto, would sometimes have produced an efficient upward tendency in some families.

Some say : Sense developes before reason ; and thus , the child is betrayed under the power of ap-

senseaccminrforsin°! petite, before _ its moral faculties are strong enough to guide him. I answer, mere ani- mal appetite, without moral element, has no moral quality ; it is the heart which gives the evil element to bodily appetite, not vice versa. But chiefly; we show that the result is uniform and certain : whence it would be the efficient result of God's natural law ; which makes it more obnoxious to the charge of making God the author of sin, than the Calvinistic theory.

Against the other element of original sin, the imputed

. . guilt of Adam's first sin, it is also objected,.

Imputations^ °"^ '^ ^^^^t it cannot be true : for then God will

appear to have acted with equal severity

334 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

against poor helpless babes, who, on the Calvinist's theory, have no g^ailt except total depravity never yet expressed in a single overt act against His law ; and against Adam, the volun- tary sinner : and Satan and his angels. We reply, No. All infinites are not equal. Paschal and Sir Isaac Newton have shown, that of two true infinites one may be infinitely larger than another. If the infant, Adam, and Satan, be all punished eternally, they will not be punished equally. Further ; has it been proved that any infants who die in infancy, (without overt sin), are eternally lost ? The question however is : are infants depraved by nature? And is this tendency of will to evil, morally evil? Then God is entitled to punish it as it deserves.

A Scriptural objection is raised, from such passages as Deut. xxiv : i6. It is urged with great con- Scdptur2°''' ^''°™ fidence, that here, the principle on which Calvinists represent God as acting, (God the pure and good Father in Heaven,) is seen to be so utterly wicked, that imperfect human magistrates are forbidden to prac- tice on it. I reply ; it is by no means true that an act would be wicked in God, because it would be wicked in man. e. g. Man may not kill ; God righteously kills millions every year. But second: the object of civil government is very different from that of God's government. The civil magistrate does not punish sin in order to requite absolutely its ill-desert, (this is the function of God alone,) but to preserve the public order and well-being, by making an example of criminals. Now, of that element of guilt against society, the children of the mur- derer or thief are clear ; for the magistrate to shed their blood for this, would be to shed innocent blood : i. e., innocent as to that element of guilt which it is the civil magistrate's business to punish. Here, let it be noted, the punishment of Achan's, Saul's, &c., children, for their fathers, was the act of God, not the magistrate. The cases were exceptional.

Again : it is urged with much clamour, that in Ezek. xviii : Objections from 1-23, God expressly repudiates the scheme Ezek. xviii : 1-23 an- of imputation of fathers' sins to their poster- ^^^'"*^'^- ity, for Himself, as well as for magistrates ;

and declares this as the great law of His kingdom : " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." We reply-: He does not mean to disclaim the imputation of Adam's sin to the human race. For first : He does not mean here, to disclaim all principles of im- putation in His Providence even as to parents and posterity subsequent to Adam. If you force this sense on His words, all you get by it is an irreconcilable collision between this passage and Exod. xx : 5, and obvious facts in His provi- dence. Second, if it were true universally of human parents subsequent to Adam, it would not follow as to Adam's first sin. For there is a clear distinction between that act of Adam,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 335

and all the sins of other parents. He alone was a federal head in a Covenant of works. The moment he fell, by that act, the race fell in him, and its apostasy was effected ; the thing was done ; and could not be done over. From that hour, a Cove- nant of works became inapplicable to man, and neither parents nor children, for themselves, nor for each other, have had any probation under it. ' So that the case is widely different, between Adam in his first sin, and all other parents in their sin. Third : the Covenant to which this whole passage has ref- erence was, not the. old Covenant of works, whose probation was forever past, but the political, theocratic Covenant between God and Israel. Israel, as a commonwealth, was now suffering under providential penalties, for the breach of that political covenant exactly according to the terms of the threatenings. (See Deut. xxviii). But although that was indisputable, the banished Jews still consoled their pride by saying, that it was their fathers' breach of the national Covenant for which they were suffering. In this plea God meets them : and tells them it was false : for the terms of the theocracy were such that the covenant-breaking of the father would never be visited under it on the son who thoroughly disapproved of it, and acted in the opposite way. How far is this from touching the subject of Original Sin ? But last : we might grant that the passage did refer to original sin: and still refute the objector thus: God says the son who truly disapproves of and reverses his father's practices, shall live. Show us now, a child of Adam who ful- fills this condition, in his own strength ; and we will allow that the guilt of Adam's sin has not affected him.

In defending the federal relationship instituted between Adam's Representa- Adam and his posterity against the charge of tion a humane arrange- cruelty, let it be distinctly understood, that '"^"'' we do not aim to justify the equity of the

arrangement merely by the plea that it was a benevolent one, and calculated to promote the creature's advantage. For if it were an arrangement intrinsically unrighteous, it would be no sufficient answer to say, that it was politic and kindly. God does not " do evil, that good may come ; " nor hold that " the end sanctifies the means." But still, we claim that, as the sep- arate charge of cruelty, or harshness, is urged against this fed- eral arrangement, we can triumphantly meet it, and show that the arrangement was eminently benevolent ; thus reconciling it to the divine attribute of goodness, so far as that is concerned in it. And further : while the benevolence of an arrangement may not be a sufficient justification of its righteousness, yet it evidently helps to palliate the charge of injustice, and to raise a presumption in favor of the equity of the preceeding. If there were injustice in such a transaction, one element of it must be that it was mischievous to the happiness of the parties.

The federal relation, then, was consistent with God's good-

336 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Its benevolence ness. Let the student remember what was proved by Compari- estabhshed concerning the natural rights and ^°"- relations of a holy creature towards his Cre-

ator. The former could nev^er earn a claim, by natural justice, to any more than this : to be well treated to the extent of his natural well-being merely, as long as he behaves himself per- fectly, or until God should see fit to annihilate him. If God condescended to any fuller communications of happiness, or to give any promise of eternal life, it must be by an act of free grace. And the covenant of works was such an act of grace. Now, a race of men being created, holy and happy, there were, as far as the human mind can imagine, but four plans possible for them. One was, to be left under their natural relation to God forever. The second was, to have the gracious offer of a covenant of works, under which each one should stand for himself, and a successful probation of some limited period, (suppose 70 years,) be kindly accepted by God for his justifica- tion, and adoption into eternal life. The third was, for God to enter into such a covenant of works, for a limited period,, with the head of the race federally, for himself and his race, so that if he stood the limited probation, justification and adoption should be graciously bestowed on him, and in him, on all the race ; and if he failed, all should be condemned in him. The last was the plan actually chosen : Let us compare them, and see if it is not far the most benevolent of the three.

The first plan, I assert, would have resulted, sooner or later, m the sin and fall of every member of the race, and that, with a moral certainty. (This may be the reason that God has condescended to a Covenant with each order of rational creatures after creating them). For creatures, no matter how holy, are finite, in all their faculties and habitudes. But, in an existence under law, i. e., under duty, requiring perpetual and perfect obedience, and protracted to immortality, the num- ber and variety of exegencies or moral trials, would become infinite ; and therefore the chance of error, in the passage of a finite holiness through them, would become ultimately a most violent probability, mounting nearer and nearer to a moral cer- tainty. Whenever sin occurred, the mere natural relation qf the soul to God would require Him to avenge it. Thus one after another would stumble, till ultimately all were lost. Were inno- cent creatures thus required to sustain and guide themselves, as they moved in their exact orbits around the throne of God : one after another would, in the lapse of an eternity, forsake the path, increase his centrifugal force, and fly off into outer dark- ness ; leaving God at last, a sun without a planet. This plan would have been least benevolent.

But suppose each man allowed the privilege of a Covenant of works, for some limited time, to win the grace of adoption unto life by a perfect obedience for, say, 70 years, and begin-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 337

ning his probation with a perfectly innocent nature. How would that work ? Why : have we not here, the very state of the case which Socinians and Pelagians say, actually prevails ? Let man's experience then, even as interpreted by these heretics, give the answer how it works. Do they not admit that, by vir- tue of evil example, nearly all fall ? Can they deny that the earth is full of misery and wickedness ; and that none remain absolutely innocent? If then, our present state were consist- ently interpreted as a probation' under a Covenant of works, in which any sin forfeits the prize ; if Pelagians would be con- sistent, and not introduce the preposterous idea of pardon under such a plan, where it has no place ; even they would be compelled to admit that this second scheme does actually result in a total failure. Under it, all are destroyed. It too, then has as little beneficence as the first. This, I grant, is an argiunen- twn ad homiiiem ; but it is a just one. But we might leave the Pelagian's premises, and still reason, that the second scheme would only result in death. The actual failure of the first man's probation settles the question as to him. The next would have had the same chances of fall, aggravated by the evil example and enticements of the first ; and soon, the current of evil would have become so general that all would go with it.

Let us come to the third plan. Is it said, that practically, Advantao-e of Cove- ^^^ \'^2i.ve died under that also, so that it is nantof Works, with a just on a par with the other two? I answer, Representative. j^q . because the probabilities of a favour-

able issue were as great as could well be imagined, compatibly with leaving the creature mutable at all. For, instead of having a risque repeated millions of times, under circumstances increas- ingly untoward, only one risque was permitted. And this was under the most favourable possible conditions. The probationer had no human bad company ; he was in the maturity of his powers and knowledge ; whereas his posterity would have had to begin their trial in their inexperienced boyhood. He had the noblest motives to stand, imaginable. Had the probation re- sulted favourably, so that we had all entered existence assured against sin and misery, and the adopted heirs of eternal life, how should we have magnified the goodness of God in the dis- pensation ? The grace bestowed through the first Adam, would have been only second in its glory, to that we now adore in the second! Now, the failure was not God's fault; His goodness is just the same in the plan, as though it had eventuated well. It is no objection to say, that God foreknew, all the while, how unfortunately it would eventuate, and even determined to per- mit it. For this objection is no other than the one against the permission of evil ; which no one can solve. It is but to restate the question : Why did not God just communicate Himself at once to every reasonable creature, so as absolutely to confirm His will against sin, without proposing any covenant, or proba-

338 SYLLAbUS AND NOTES

tion at all ? There is no answer, but Matt, xi ; 26. This plan, the fourth and only other, being excluded, as stubborn fact proves it was, the federal arrangement made with Adam for his posterity, was the most liberal one.

But the grand objection of all Pelagians and skeptics, is still repeated : How can it be justice, for tic?KpSf ^"" me,^vhogave no consent to the federal ar- rangement, for me, who was not present when Adam sinned, and took no share in it, save in a sense purely fictitious and imaginary, to be so terribly punished for another man's deed. This is nothing else than the intrinsic injustice of punishing an innocent man for the fault of the guilty. As well might God have gotten up a legal fiction of a federal relation between Gabriel and Satan, and when the latter sinned, drasreed Gabriel down, innocent, and even ignorant of any crime, to hell. Against such a plan, the moral instincts of man rebel. It is simply impossible that they should accept it as righteous.

I have thus stated this objection in its full force. So far as The several answers. ^ ^"^ aware, there have been five several I. TheWesleyan is in- expedients proposed for meeting it. i. The adequate. Wesley an says : the injustice would appear,

if it were not remedied in the second Adam, in whom the impu- tation of Adam's guilt and original sin are so far repaired, as to give common sufficient grace to every child of Adam. So that the two dispensations ought to be viewed together ; and what is harsh in one will be compensated in the other. This is inad- missible for many reasons ; chiefly because there is no common sufficient grace ; and because if this solution be adopted, then the gospel will be of debt, and not of grace.

We find President Edwards endeavoring to evade the

objection, by asserting that our federal one-

2. President Edwards' vi a j .„ • u-j. • ^1 ^

also inadequate. "^^^ '^^^^'^ Adam IS no more arbitrary, m that

it was constituted by God's fiat, than our own personal identity : for that also is constituted only by God's institution. If it be asked why it is just that I should be punished to-day, for a sin committed last year, our moral in- stincts answer : Because I am the same person who sinned. But the Pelagian objection urges that we are not one with Adam in any real sense, and therefore cannot be justly made guilty for Adam's sin. But, says Edwards : " What is personal identity ; and is it any less arbitrary than our federal identity with Adam ?" He answers : In no wise. Because our existence is dependent and successive. Its sustentation is a perpetual recreation. Its succession is a series of moments, of which one moment's existence does not cause or produce a succeeding moment's, not being coexistent with it, as cause and effect must always be. Hence, our continued identity is nothing else than a result of the will of God, sovereignly ordaining to restore our existence out of niliil, by a perpetual recreation, at the begin-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 339

ning of each new moment, and to cause in us a consciousness which seems to give sameness. I will venture the opinion that no man, not Edwards himself, ever satisfied himself, by this argument, that his being had not a true, intrinsic continuity, and a real, necessary identity, in itself. And it may usually be con- cluded, that when any scientific hypothesis conflicts thus with universal common sense, it is sophistical. In this case, a more correct Metaphysics has justified common sense. Our belief in our own identity is not derived from our remembered con- sciousness, but implied in it. Belief in identity is an a priori, and necessary conception. If it be not accepted as valid, there is no valid law of thought at all. When I speak of the I, a true and intrinsic continuity of being is necessarily implied. Nor is it true that because the moments of successive time are not connected, therefore the existence which we necessarily conceive of as flowing on in time, is disconnected in its momenta. We have seen that the notion of a perpetual recreation in the providential support of dependent being is unproved. Hence we repudiate this Edwardean speculation as worthless, and con- tradicted by our own intuitions.

Another attempt is made to establish a real identity of Adam's posterity with him, so as to lay a ■unsoimd ^" ^ ^^'^"^ ^ seeming basis for the imputation, by a class of theologians represented by Dr. S. J. Baird's " Elohim Revealed," who claim St. Augustine as of their party. They say, we are made guilty of Adam's sin, because " we sinned in him and fell with him," not merely in a putative and federal sense, but really and truly. Thus we are involved in a true and proper responsibility for the sin of Adam, because we were actually in him seminally, as our root. They teach that we become sinners in him, because the Nature sinned in him, and became guilty in him, as well as depraved ; and this nature we have. Our nature they define to be that aggregate of forces, or attributes which constitute the human race what it is ; and this, they hold, is not an abstraction when regarded dis- tinctly from all individual men, but an objective reality, not indeed a substance, yet an entity. This nature, which thus sin- ned, and became guilty and depraved in Adam's act, is trans- ferred as a real germ, to every human being from him ; and hence depravity and guilt go along. This theory, while not exactly mediaeval Realism, is certainly something near akin to it ; and the objections are of the same kind. That the phrase, human nature, expresses anything more than a complex conception of our thought, when abstracted from any one and every one human person, is untrue. This nature, they say, is the aggregate of all the forces which characterize man as man. But have those forces, each one, separate existence, as abstracted from all the individual men whom they characterize ? Has the attribute of risibility, e. g. separate existence from each and every risible

340 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

being? Obviously not. How then can the aggregate of these attributes? Again : we cannot attach the idea of sin, morahty, responsibiUty, and guilt to anything but a personal being. If the nature, along with which the depravity and responsibility are transmitted, has not personality, the theory does not help us at all. But if you give it personality, have you not gotten back to the common soul of Averroes, the half-way house of Pantheism? Third: if the imputation of Adam's guilt is grounded solely on the fact that the nature we bear sinned and was corrupted in him, must it not follow that Christ's human nature is also corrupt, inasmuch as it was made guilty ? And indeed is not our obeying and atoning in Him, through the com- munity of the nature that obeyed and atoned, precisely as real and intrinsic, as our sinning and corrupting ourselves in Adam ? For these reasons, we must reject this explanation as untrue, if anything more be meant by it, than a strong way of stating the vital truth, .that imputation is partly grounded on the fact Adam was the natural head of the race.

The fourth solution attempted for the great objection,

brings us to the nth question: the scheme

II. Mediate Impu- ^f j^ediate imputation. The author and his-

tation. r 1 • rn • i i i -t^

tory oi this are sumciently stated by 1 urret- tin. Placaeus said that the imputation of Adam's sin was only mediate, and consequent upon our participation in total native depravity, which we derive by the great law, that like begets like. We, being thus depraved by nature, and, so to speak, endorsing his sin, by exhibiting the same spirit and committing similar acts, it is just in God to implicate us in the same pun- ishments.

Let it be remarked, first, that the charge made in the National Synod of Charenton, was, that Placaeus had denied all imputation of Adam's guilt, and had made original sin con- sist exclusively in subjective depravity. This is precisely what the Synod condemned. It was to evade this censure, that he invented the distinction between an " antecedent and immedi- ate imputation " of Adam's guilt, which he denied, and a " mediate and subsequent imputation," which he professed to hold. It appears then, that this invention was no part of the theology, of the Reformed churches, and had never been heard of before. So thought Dr. A. Alexander, (Princeton Review, Oct. 1839.) The distinction seems to have been a ruse designed to shelter himself from censure, and to lay a snare for his accusers. It was unfortunate that they, like his chief oppo- nent, Andrew Rivet, fell into it, by advocating the " antecedent and immediate imputation," as the only true view. It docs not appear to me that those who, with Rivet, have laboured to show that this is the doctrine of the Reformed Symbols, have at all proved their point. The distinction is, like that of the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian, an attempted over-refine-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 34I

ment, which should never have been made, which explained nothing, and whose coroharies increased the difficulties of the subject.

Turrettin, and those who assert the " antecedent immedi- ate imputation," charge that the scheme of Placaeus is only Arminianism in disguise, and that it really leaves no imputa- tion of Adam's guilt at all ; inasmuch as they say it leaves the personal guilt of the child's own subjective corruption, as the real ground of all the penal infliction incurred by original sin. While these objections seem just in part, I would add two others : First. Placaeus, like the lower Arminian, seems to offer the fact that God should have extended the law " like begets like," to man's moral nature, as an explanation of original sin. This, as I urged before, is only obtruding the fact itself as an explanation of the fact. To extend this law of nature to responsible persons, is an ordination of God. The question is : on what judicial basis does this ordination rest? Second: Placaeus' scheme is false to the facts of the case, in that it rep- resents Adam's posterity as having, in God's view, an actual, antecedent, depraved existence, at least for a moment, before they passed therefor under condemnation ; whereas the Scrip- tures represent them as beginning their existence condemned, as well as depraved. See Eph. 2:3.

In opposition to this scheme, Turrettin states the view of immediate imputation, which has since been ^^Immediate Imputa- ^^f^^^^ ^nd asserted in its most rigid sharp- ness by the Princeton school. It boldly repudiates every sense in which we really or actually sinned in Adam, and admits no other than merely the representative 5ense of a positive covenant. It says that the guilt of Adam's first sin, which was personally nobody's but Adam's own, is sovereignly imputed to his posterity. Depravity of nature is a part of the penalty of death, due to Adam's sin, and is visited on Adam's children purely as the penal consequence of the putative guilt they bear. For sin may be the punishment of sin. Very true, after depravity of nature thus becomes person- ally theirs, it also brings an addition of personal guilt, for which they are thenceforward punished, as well as for actual trans- gressions. The grounds for this statement are chiefly these two : I. That Rom. v : 12-20 asserts an exact parallel between our federal relation to Adam and to Christ, so that, as the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, conceived as per- sonally unrighteous, goes before procuring our justification, and then ah sanctifying grace is bestowed working personal sanctification, as purchased by Christ's righteousness for us ; so, we must conceive Adam's guilt imputed to us, we being conceived as, in the first instance, personally guiltless, but for that guilt ; and then depravity given us, working personal sin and guilt, as the mischievous purchase of Adam's federal act

342 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

for US. And, as the parallel must be exact, if this view of original sin be rejected, then the view of justification must be modified "to suit;" making it consist first in an infusion of personal righteousness in the believer, and then the consequent accounting to us of Christ's righteousness. But that is pre- cisely the Romish justification. 2. The connection between the second Adam and His believing people, in the covenant of grace, includes an imputation which is the exact counterpart of that of the first Adam's guilt. This is the two-fold imputation of our sins to Christ, and of His righteousness to us. But the former of these is strictly an imputation of peccatitni aliemiDi to Christ; and the latter is an immediate imputation of His righteousness to us. Hence, if we deny this scheme of antece- dent, immediate imputation, we must give up salvation by impu- ted righteousness, and there remains no way of escape for sinners.

I propose to dwell upon this question a little more than its intrinsic importance deserves. Having pronounced it a useless and erroneous distinction, I might be expected to dismiss it with scant notice. But it receives an incidental importance from the important truths connected with it. These are, most prominently, the difficulties concerning the righteousness of the imputation of Adam's guilt, and also, the nature of impu- tation in general, justification, union to Christ, God's provi- dence in visiting the sins of parents on children, (Ex. xx : 5,) and the manner in which the ethical reason should be treated, when it advances objections against revealed truth.

I sustain my position, then, that this distinction between " mediate," and " immediate " imputation should never have been made, by showing that it causelessly aggravates the diffi- culties of the awful doctrine of original sin, exaggerating need- lessly the angles of a subject which is, at best, sufficiently mysterious ; that the arguments by which the immediate impu- tation must be sustained misrepresent the doctrines of the spiritual union and justification; and especially, that it is false to the facts of the case, in a mode the counterpart of Placaeus'. It represents the child of Adam as having a separate, unde- praved, personal existence, at least for an instant; until from innocent, it becomes depraved by God's act, as a penal conse- quence of Adam's guilt imputed as peccatwn aliemnn solely. * But in fact, man now never has any personal existence at all, save a depraved existence. As he enters being condemned, so he enters it depraved. This over-refinement thus leads us to an error in the statertient of fact, which matches that resulting from the opposite scheme. Does not this show very clearl}-, that the distinction should never have been made ? And can those who advocate the " immediate, precedaneous imputation,"

* That the drift of the scheme makes the infant soul initially pure, may be seen from Hodge on Rom. v : 13. Theol. vol. 2, jd^). 210, 203. Thornwell, vol. 1, pp. 346,. 34.7, 349. Chalmers' Theo. Institutes, vol. i, pp. 485 and 497.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. 2:3

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

343

after applauding the refutation of Placaeus' scheme by the par- allel argument, justly recoil from its application to themselves? But it is argued, that since the imputation of our guilt to Christ is an immediate imputation of pcccatimi alicnum, grounded in His community of nature with His people, the parallelism of the two doctrines shuts us up to a similar impu- tation of Adam's guilt to us. I reply : the cases indisputably differ in two vital respects. It may be asked if both covenants do not rest on the principle of imputation? The answer is, of course, yes ; both covenants involve the principle, that God may justly transfer guilt from one moral agent to another, under certain conditions. But it does not follow, that He will do this under any conditions whatever.* Does any one sup- pose, for instance, that God would have condemned holy Gabriel for Satan's sin, without any assent, complicity or knowledge, on the part of the former ? But we shall find that the cases of Adam and Christ are conditioned differently in two important respects. First : Christ's bearing our imputed guilt was conditioned on His own previous, voluntary consent. See Jno. x : i8. All theologians, so far as I know, regard this as essential to a just imputation of peccatimi aliemtm directly to Him. See, for instance. Dr. Thornwell's Mission Sermon of 1856. "It" (Christ's covenant with the Father), "binds not by virtue of a right to command, but by virtue of a consent to obey." Butler's Analogy, pt. II, chap. 5, § 7. Owen on Justif. p. 194. Chalmers' Theol. Inst., vol. I, p. 498.) If a man were to hold that the Father would have made this imputation of another's guilt upon His Son, in spite of the Son's exercising His legitimate autocracy to refuse and decline it, I should consider that man past reasoning with. But Adam's infant children receive the imputation, when they are incapable of a rational option or assent about it. The other difference in the two cases, (which it seems amazing any one can overlook,) is the one pointed out in Rom. v : 16-19, and vi : 23. For the judgment was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift (verse 15, "gift by grace ") is of many offences unto iustification." The imputation of Adam's sin was a trans- action of strict, judicial righteousness ; the other transaction was one of glorious, free grace. Now, can any righteous judge be imagined, who would allow himself equal latitude in his judicial convictions, which he claims in his acts of voluntary beneficence? Would not the righteous magistrate answer, that in condeming, he felt himself restricted by the exact merits of the parties ; but that in giving, he felt himself free to transcend their merits, and bestow what his generous impulses prompted ? It may be praiseworthy to dispense blessings above the deserts of the beneficiaries; it cannot be other than injustice to dis-

* See Hodge's Theol. vol. 2, p. 196. Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. 9.

344 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

pense penalties beyond the deserts of the culprits. We thus find that the imputation to us from Adam, and from us to Christ, are unavoidably conditioned in different ways in part ; in other respects they are analogous.

Our next point is founded on the admission, in which we are all agreed, that the imputation of Adam's guilt to us, is in part grounded, essentially, in the community of nature. But with which nature of Adam, are we united by the tie of race ; the fallen, or the unfallen ? Adam had no offspring until after he became a sinner. Then he begat even Seth, the father of the holy seed, "in his own likeness, after his image." (Gen. V : 3.) The Scriptures, from Job to Christ, assure us, that the thing which is born of the flesh is flesh. The race union obvi- ously unites us with Adam fallen, in his corrupted nature. Hence we argue, that if this race union is one of the essential grounds of the imputation, it cannot be antecedent to that sub- jective corruption of nature, on which it is partly grounded. This reasoning has been felt as so forcible, that the advocates of immediate imputation have found it necessary to study evasions. One is, to argue that our federal union was with the nature of Adam unfallen, because the moment he fell, the cov- enant of works was abrogated. I reply : Not so ; for if that covenant was then abrogated, it is strange that we are still suffering the penalty of its breach ! The true statement is, that the broken covenant still remains in force, against all not in the second Adam, as a rule of condemnation ; its breach by our representative only made it ineffectual as a rule of life. Another evasion is, to say, that our Nature had its representa- tion and probation in Adam, before any of us had a personal existence, and while the nature in him was unfallen. I reply by asking: What sense do the words, "our Nature," have in this statement ? Is it of the imputation of Adam's guilt to the Nature, that we are debating ? or of its imputation to persons ? Now, it is only a metaphor to speak of beings as bearing a rela- tion to each other, while one of them, (Adam's descendant) is non-existent as yet. Only existing beings sustain actual rela- tions. The only other sense, in which the relation between me and Adam had an actual being before I existed, was as it stood in God's decree. This may be illustrated' by the counterpart doctrine of justification. The Conf. chap ii, § 4, says: "God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect. * * * nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them." By parity of rea- soning I hold, that God did, from all eternity, decree to con- demn all men federally connected with Adam in his fall , nevertheless, they are not condemned actually, until they act- ually begin to exist in natural and federal union with their fallen head. But this is almost a truism.

Hence we pass to a corresponding argument from the de-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 345

pendence of the actual imputation of Christ's righteousness to us upon a certain union between Him and us. All again admit this. What species of union is it? The spiritual union. This question and answer, like the touch-stone, reveal the unsoundness of the opposing logic. The student will remem- ber how it argues : That inasmuch as we must make an exact parallel between the imputation of Adam's guilt and Christ's righteousness, we must hold that the imputing of the guilt of Adam's first sin precedaneously and immediately as solely peccatum alienum must go before, upon the offspring conceived as so far personally innocent : and then, we must consider his subjective depravity as following that putative sentence, and as the penal result thereof Else, the symmetry of the two cases will lead us from Placaeus' ground, to conceive of justification thus : that God finds in the sinner an inherent righteousness, which mediates the imputation to him of the subsequent right- eousness of Christ for his full acceptance. But this is virtually the vicious. Popish view of justification. True, I reply : this explodes Placaeus: but it also explodes their own scheme. For if we make justification correspond, by an exact sym- metry, to the scheme of their "immediate, antecedent impu- tation," then we must get this doctrine of justification : viz. The sinner, while still in his depravity, get's Christ's righteous- ness directly, gratuitously and antecedently, imputed to him ; and then, as part of the consequent reward of that imputed merit, has regeneration wrought, infusing the sanctified nature of his redeeming Head into his soul. But as faith is in order to justification, this speculation must lead us to the following order. First, the convicted sinner, while unrenewed, exercises the initial saving faith. Second, he is thereupon justified. Third, he then procures, as one of the fruits of the reconcili- ation, a holy heart, like his Saviour's. Now, a moderate tinc- ture of theology will teach any one that this is precisely the Arminian Theory of justification. And a little reflection will show, that he who makes faith precede regeneration in the order of causation, must, if consistent, be a synergist. Thus it appears that this scheme cuts off the Calvinistic doctrine of justification as rigidly as it does Placaeus. That doctrine, as none have stated more clearly than Dr. Hodge, [as Theol. vol. 2, p. 195,] distinguishes between inherent and legal righteous- ness. The latter no justified sinner has of his own, either at the moment he is justified, or ever after. The former, every believer partakes, through the grace of effectual calling, in order to the faith by which he receives justification. All intel- ligent Calvinists, so far as I know, teach that the application of redemption begins with effectual calling. The order they give is this : First, regeneration, implanting Christ's spiritual life, by which the sinner is enabled to believe : Second, faith, and then justification. In short, the believer is not first justified in

346 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

order to become a partaker of Christ's nature. He is made a partaker of that nature, in order to be justified. The vital union is both legal and spiritual : community in Christ's right- eousness is one fruit ; holy living is the other.

Once more : All Calvinists will concur with Dr. Hodge in stating, [Theol. vol. 2, pp. 196, 211], that since the ground of the imputation of Adam's guilt to us is the union of nature, the consequences of the fall come on us in the same order as on Adam. But now, I ask, was Adam's depravity solely a penal consequence of his first transgression? Surely not; for unless a depraved motive had prompted his act, it would not have carried guilt. The intention of the crime is what qualifies the act as criminal. In Adam's case, the subjective depravation (self-induced) and the guilt, were simultaneous and mutually involved. Then, according to the concession made, the scheme of immediate, precedaneous imputation is surrendered. We return, then, to the consistent statement with which the discus- sion of original sin began : That the federal and representa- tive union between Adam and his offspring, in the covenant of works, was designed to result thus : whatever legal status, and whatever moral character Adam should win for himself under his probation, that status, and that character each of his chil- dren by nature should inherit, on entering his existence.

I have not appealed to the illustrative cases in which God visits the iniquities of parents on their children ; because I do not regard them as strictly parallel to our federal union with Adam. Our parents now are not acting for us under a cove- nant of works. In this sense they are not our federal represen- tatives, as Adam was. But as the attempt has been made to wield these cases against me, I willingly meet them. It has been said, for instance, that Achan's infant children, incapable of the sin of political treason and sacrilege, were put to death for their father's guilt. Does any one suppose, that they would have died by God's order, if they had been as pure before Him, as the humanity of the infant Jesus? Hardly! The doctrine as taught by God, (Deut. v : 9 ; Matt, xxiii : 32-35) is, that He now visits the guilt of sinful parents on sinful children. The Pharisees' filling up, by their own sins, the measure of their fathers, was the condition of their inheriting the penalty of all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zacharias. This Tur- rettin teaches, Loc. ix : Qu, 9, against the interest of his own erroneous logic. Thus, we find, in this extensive class of prov- idential dealings, cases of what Dr. Hodge correctly deems, true imputation. But the conditions arc not identical with those which he claims for Adam's case.

I have said that the attempts made by Rivet and other later divines, to prove that their doctrine of immediate, prece- daneous imputation is that of the Reformed Churches and sym- bols, are vain. My conviction is, that this scheme, like the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 34/

supralapsarian, is a novelty and an over-refinement, alien to the true current of the earlier Reformed theology, and some of Pla- caeus' day were betrayed into the exaggeration by the snare set for them by his astuteness, and their own over-zeal to expose him. I beg leave to advance one or two witnesses in support. Stapfer, who has been erroneously quoted, as on Placaeus' side, says : (Vol. iv ; ch. xvii : § y8. Note.) " The whole controversy they" (impugners of the justice of imputation,) " have with us about this matter, evidently arises from this : that they suppose the mediate and the immediate imputation are distinguished one from the other, not only in the manner of conception, but in reality. And so indeed, they consider imputation only as immediate, and abstractedly from the mediate, when yet our divines suppose that neither ought to be considered separately from the other. Therefore I choose not to use any such dis- tinction. * * * While I have been writing this note, I have consulted all the systems of divinity which I have by me, that I might see what was the true and genuine opinion of our chief divines in this affair, and I found they were of the same mind with me." Markius, in DeMoor, says : If Placaeus meant nothing more by mediate imputation, than that '' liominuni na- toriun actualem piuiitioneiJi zdterioreni non fieri mido intuitu AdamiccE transgressionis, absque interveniente etiaui proptia cor- ruptione, et fliientibus Innc sceletibus variis, ncminem ortJiodox- onein posset habere obloquentein.'" DeMoor quotes Vogelsang, (Com. vol. iii : p. 275,) as saying : " Certe neminem sempiterua subire supplicia propter inobedientia protoplasti, nisi mediante cognata perversitate." Calvin in his Inst, but more distinctly in his exposition of Rom. v: 12-19, teaches just the view I have given. This much belaboured passage has been often claimed, as clearly teaching the immediate, antecedent impu- tation. Thus Dr. Hodge assumes. He claims that the correct interpretation of this passage, demands his view of the exact identity of the two imputations, in the Covenant of works, and of grace. He then, reasoning in a circle, defends his interpre- tation chiefly from the assumed premise of that identtiy. The details of his exposition seem to be more akin to those of the Socinian expositors, and of Whitby, than of the old Reformed. To me it appears, that Calvin shows a truer insight into the scope of the Apostle's discourse, and gives more satisfactory meanings of the particular phrases. The question is urged : Since Paul illustrates justification by original sin, must we not suppose an exact parallel between the illustration and the thing illustrated ? I reply : We must suppose so real a resemblance as to make the illustration a fair one ; but this does not include an exact parallel. Few scriptural illustrations present an exact one. I have showed that Dr. Hodge's effort here to maintain one, is deceptive ; and that if it were faithfully carried out, it would land us all in Arminianism, (where Whitby stood). The

348 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Apostle himself, in verse 13-17, makes exceptions to the exact- ness of his own parallel ! In view of these facts, and of the silence of our Confession touching the exaggerated scheme, we treat the charge that we are making a defection from Calvinism by preferring the old, Calvinistic doctrine to the new one of Princeton, with the entire indifference it deserves.

But it is time to return to the rationalistic objection against the justice of imputation, which has been the occasion of the speculations reviewed. (See p. 338,). Dr. Hodge seems to dispose of this objection, by simply disregarding it. The amount of satisfaction he offers to the recalcitrant reason, is : God makes this immediate imputation, and therefore it must be right, whatever reason says. Whether this is wise, or prudent, or just logic, we shall see. All the other writers I have read, who incline to the extreme view, betray a profound sense of this difficulty, by their resort to uneasy expedients to evade it. (We have seen those of Wesley and of Edwards : who belong to different schools of opinion from Turrettin, and from each other). But these evasions, if they satisfy themselves, do not satisfy each other. That adopted by Dr. Hodge, from Turret- tin, (Loc. ix : Qu. 9 : § 14 ; Theology, Vol. ii : p. 21 1), is, that the penalty we incur from Adam's imputed guilt is, (a) privative, and (b), positive. The former, involving simply the lack of original righteousness, is visited on us by the immediate, precedaneous imputation. The latter, carrying spiritual death and all posi- tive miseries, is imputed mediately. Though the second insepa- rably follows the first, yet they are to be thus distinguished. Dr Thornwell effectually explodes this evasion for us. (Works, Vol. I : p. 333). He asks : if the child of Adam is initially pure, is there any less difficulty in a just and Holy God's treat- ing him as a sinner, than in His causing him to be a sinner ? And if this penal treatment (on imputation of pcccatum aliciiinii) does cause him to be a sinner, have we not both the difficulties on our hands? For, second: the distinction between a priva- tive, and a positive depravation is, for a Calvinist, utterly incon- sistent. Turrettin, when arguing against Pelagians and Pa- pists, has himself proved that the privative state of a lack of original righteousness is, ipso facto, positive depravity. So says common sense. That a rational creature of God, knowing His perfections, and His own accountability, should fail to love and reverence Him, is itself to be in a positively unholy state. I add, third, that even if the distinction were allowed, yet if from the privative, the positive depravation unavoidably and naturally follows, then the same judicial act which inflicts the one has also inflicted the other. The executioner, who swings off the felon to be hanged, from the platform of tlie gibbet, does thereby choke him to death.

Dr. Thornwell, in turn, after looking the doctrine of imme- diate precedaneous imputation steadily in the face, finds himself

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 349

constrained to seek a palliation for its difficulty, in the same direction from which he had sought to recall Dr. S. J. Baird a few years before. On pp. 349, 350, of his Lectures, he says: " On these grounds I am free to confess, that I cannot escape from the doctrine, however mysterious, of a generic unity in man, as the true basis of the representative economy in the covenant of works. The human race is not an aggregate of independent atoms, but constitutes an organic whole, with a com- mon life springing from a common ground. * * * There is in man what we may call a common nature. That common nature is not a mere generalization of logic, but a substantive reality." Thus, the stress of the rationalistic objection appears to him so heavy, that it drives him to the solution he had before refuted. For the reasons stated on p. 339, this resort appears to me invalid. It is true, Adam was " the root of all mankind." This race unity is, as our Confession states, an all-important condition of the federal union. But apart from each human person, we see in this race-unity no moral, and still less any personal entity, to be the subject of responsibility.

The difficulty then recurs : Is the doctrine of original sin founded on that which seems to the natural conscience an intrinsic injustice, punishing innocent persons, without their consent, for another man's sin ? Let the student bear in mind, that we have no intention of denying the mysteriousness of the divine dispensation of the fall of our race in their first father. It is an inscrutable providence. But while the view I sustain, leaves it enveloped in a mystery which the wisest and best of us most clearly see will never be solved in this world ; the advantage I claim is, that it leaves the doctrine in a state where no man can convict it of injustice. This advantage appears in two ways. First : man reasons chiefly by parallel instances ; his reasoning is comparison. Consequently, in a case wholly unique, where there is no parallel, while he may not compre- hend, he cannot convict of injustice. The case is above his grasp ; he has no experimental scales in which to weigh it. Second : our fall in Adam, as properly stated, lacks the essen- tial point wherein the caviller finds, in the instance of his pre- tended parallel, the intrinsic injustice. But it is evident, on consideration, that, upon the theory of immediate imputation, that essential point is yielded to the caviller. It is, that the innocent is punished, without his consent, for the guilty. Let us suppose the case usually cited for illustration, the peaceful citizen charged, under human laws, with the putative guilt of a murder to which he had not consented. This injustice is indis- putable. But let us see what is involved in the fact of per- sonal innocency in this case ; for there lies the basis of our moral judgment about it. It means that this peaceful citizen has complied with the prohibitory laws of his country, in refraining from all injury to others' lives. But a law, sustained

350 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

by sanction, is of the nature of a covenant with the citizens. The man who has actually kept the law has thereby earned his covenanted title to immunity. This is what this man means, by claiming his innocency. He has been invested by the cov- enant of the law itself, with this title to immunity, before the putative murder was committed, and he can now be righteously divested of this title only by his own transgression. To impute to this man now, the guilt of peccatiini aiicninn, divests him of this pre-existent righteous title to immunity. There is the impregnable ground upon which he will resist the charge.

Now, let us represent imputation as the Scriptures do, and the sinner fallen in Adam has no such argument to use. He does not approach the judicial issue clothed with a pre-existing, personal title to favour, derived from a previous, personal rec- titude under a covenant of works. For, previous to his con- demnation in Adam, he has no personal, innocent existence, not for one moment, not even in any correct order of thought ; for he has had no actual existence at all. He enters existence depraved, as he enters it guilty ; he enters it guilty as he enters it depraved. This is the amount of his federal union with Adam ; that the offspring shall have, ab initio, the same legal status and moral nature, which his head determined for him- self, by his acts while under probation. This statement is strictly correspondent to the facts revealed and experienced. And it has this great advantage, that it leaves the sinner, fallen in Adam, no pretext to complain that he has been stripped of any just personal title to immunity, by thus bringing him under putative guilt. For he had no such personal title to be stripped of, seeing he had no personal existence at all, prior to the depravity and guilt. This dispensation of God, then, remains unique, without any parallel in any human jurisprudence. It is solemn, mysterious, awful ; but it is placed where it is impos- sible to convict it of injustice on God's part. That His exer- cise of His sovereignty in this strange dispensation is holy, righteous, benevolent, and wise, we have this sufficient proof; that He has given His own Son, in free grace, to repair the mis- chiefs which human sin causes under the case. Let us remem- ber, that the covenant of paradise was liberal, equitable, and splendidly beneficent in its own character. Its failure was exclusively man's and Satan's fault. God has not been the efficient of any man's sin or depravation, but only the permiss- ive Disposer : the only efficients of both evils have been men and their spiritual seducers. In the great, gospel Remedy, God is real Efficient. •

12. That one's view of original sin will be decisive of his whole system of theology, is obvious from the familiar truth ; that the remedy is determined by the disease. As is the diag- nosis, so will be the medical treatment. If the Pelagian view of human nature prevails, the corresponding view of its regen-

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. v: 12-19

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 35 I

eration must prevail. Thus, faith, repentance, and the other essential graces of the pew life, will be traced to the human will as their source. Then, the office-work of the Spirit will be degraded ; and the Socinian result, which denies His personality will be natural. The analysis of Nestorianism will show us also, how the same view of human nature and of free-agency, will modify the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, preparing the way for. a belief in a merely human Christ.

But if the scriptural doctrines of native depravity and fed- eral representation be firmly held, then there will follow, as rea- sonable corollaries, all the points of the Calvinistic, or August- inian scheme, supernatural regeneration, unconditional election, perseverance in grace, divinity of Christ, and personality and ■divinity of the Holy Ghost.

SYLLABUS

1. In what senses is the word Law used in Scripture? See Concordances and Lexicons.

2. Is the law of God written on the natural conscience intuitively ? Wliat the authority of this natural law? Is the Decalogue of Moral or of Positive obligation?

See Turrettin, Loc. ix, Qu. i, 2. Sensualistic Philosophy of igtli Cent., ch. 12. Dick, Lect. 102.

3. If the Covenant of Works is now inapplicable for us, what uses has the law in a plan of salvation by grace ?

Turrettin, Qu. 22, 25. Calvin, bk. ii, ch. 7. Ridgely, Qu. 94-97.

4. Recite the origin of the Decalogue. How is it divided? \\Tiat are the prin- ciples on which it is to be interpreted ?

Calvin, bk. ii, ch. 8. Turretdn, Qu, 5, 6. Dick, Lect. 102, 103. Ridgeley, Qu. 98, 99.

5. Is the Decalogue a perfect rule of life? Did Christ abrogate or amend any part of it ?

Turrettin, Qu. 3, 4. Dick as above. Dr. Ashbel Green's Lect. 34-36, on Shorter Catechism.

T

HE word " Law," (nllin^ vofio:^) is employed in the Scrip-

T

ture with a certain latitude of meaning, but always carry-

^ . . ing the force of meaning contained in the

I. Definitions. 1 -j r 1 ,• ■ • 1 t^- ,

general idea 01 a regulative principle, rirst, it sometimes expresses the whole of Revelation, as in Ps. i : 2. Second, the whole Old Testament, as in Jno. x : 34. Third, frequently the Pentateuch, as in Luke xxiv : 44. Fourth, the preceptive moral law (Prov. xxviii : 4; Rom. ii : 14. Fifth, the ceremonial code, as in Heb. x : i. Sixth, the decalogue. Matt. xxii : 36-40. Seventh, a ruling power in our nature, as in Rom. vii : 23- Eighth, the covenant of works, Rom. vi : 14. By the Law, in the following discussions,- we intend the precep- tive moral law, as epitomized in the decalogue.

352 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The student will be prepared to expect my answer to the second point, from what has been taught of 2. Moral Distinction ^^^ eternity of moral distinctions. These Intrinsic. ...•'., , ^ ,-,,,

are mtrmsic m that class ot acts. Ihey are

not instituted solely by the positive will of God, but are en- joined by that will because His infinite mind saw them to be intrinsic and eternal. In a word : Duties are not obligatory and right solely because God has commanded them ; but He has commanded them because they are right. Hence, we con- fidently expect to find the natural powers of reason and con- science in man impressed with the moral distinction, and pro- nouncing it intuitively.

(a.) From the fact that the Scriptures represent God Him- self, at least in one particular, as bound by this distinction of right and wrong, " God cannot lie ;" that is, the eternal perfec- tions of His own mind so regulate His own volitions that His will certainly, yet freely, refuses all error. See also 2 Tim. ii : 13.

(b.) The very nature of a creature implies rightful subjec- tion to a Creator; its denial would be utter contradiction. Thus the law of our reason teaches us, that the creature existing, these moral relations cannot but exist, whether God has pub- lished them in positive precepts, or not.

(c.) If these moral distinctions owed their origin solely to God's positive will, no distinction could be drawn between moral and positive precepts. The prohibition, " Thou shall not bear false witness," would be exactly like this : "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk." But there is a distinc- tion between the two classes, recognized by God and our rea- son. 'Judgment, mercy, and truth,' are pronounced * weightier matters of the law,' compared with tithing mint, anise, and cummin.

(d.) If there were no cause, save God's mere will, why moral distinctions were drawn as they are, He might have made treachery a virtue, and truth a crime, &c. Against this every moral intuition revolts. Why might not God have done this ? The only answer is, that His own unchangeable moral perfec- tions made it impossible. Just so ; it is admitted that the basis of the moral distinction is a priori to all volition of God ; which is substantially my proposition. And last, and most conclusively : If God's mere positive volition made an act of the creature morally right, then of course God must be mor- ally right in entertaining that volition. But the moral character of volitions depends wholly on that of the principles which prompt them. So that, we see, if there were no moral distinc- tion a priori to God's mere will, God could have no moral character in acts of His will.

The moral distinction being then intrinsic and eternal, it

follows that the intuition and feeling of its

onsequences. oblieation must be one of the natural endow-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 353

ments of the rational creature made in God's image. This obhgation must be recognized by man's conscience as natural and moral, and not merely positive. To this agree the Scrip- tures, Rom. i : 19-21 ; ii : 14, 15 ; Acts xiv : 17. And these declarations are confirmed, by the consensus popnli upon the existence of a moral obligation, and its main outlines, by a multitude of the facts of our consciousness, by the admissions of Pagans. But here, the distinction so clearly made between moral principia and conclusiones, must be noted. In some cases of moral obligation, the perception and verdict of conscience are immediate. In other cases, they are deductive. Should a creature obey its Creator? To this the sane reason answers intuitively, Yes. Should the borrower pay any hire for the use of money ? To this the mind can only answer deductively ; certain premises must be known to the understanding, from which the moral answer must be by deduction drawn.

If the moral distinction, is thus eternal in acts, unchange- able in God, and natural in man, the preceptive law receives a new dignity, immutability, and sacredness. Then it follows, also, that the natural conscience is God's viceregent in man; and its dictates must be obeyed, or guilt arises. But when we remember that the light in man's conscience is imperfect, we see that it is not true that this faculty is a sufficient rule of duty. That rule is found in God's precepts alone. The seem- ing paradox arising out of the dictate of an ill-informed con- science has been already considered, in lecture X.

It has beeen asked, if the Law can no longer be a cove-

„ r T nant of life to fallen sinners, what place and

3. Uses 01 Law . , • 1 r 1

under Covenant of use can it properly have m a plan 01 salva- Grace— The Law Im- tion by efrace ? You are aware that there ^ have been, in ihe Church, errorists called

Antinomians, who, in fact, sought to exclude the law from their system, asserting that since it is no longer a term of life, since it has been fully satisfied both in its preceptive and penal demands by the believer's divine Substitute, it can have no binding force upon, and no application to him. But the view I have given of the Law, as the necessary and unchang- ing expression of God's rectitude, shows that its authority over- moral creatures is unavoidable. If God reveals Himself to them, He cannot but reveal Himself as He is. Just these pre- cepts are the inevitable expression of a will guided by immu- table perfections. It is therefore sijnply impossible that any dispensation, of whatever mercy or grace, could have the effect of abrogating righteous obligation over God's saints. God's mercy through a Redeemer satisfying justice, may lift off the curse of the law for transgression ; but it is impossible that it should abrogate rightful authority. The Law then must remain, under every dispensation, the authoritative declaration of God's character. 23*

354 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

A second essential use of the Law under the New Cove- The Law convicts ^ant, is that which Gal. iii : 24 states : " The of our need of Christ, Law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto ^^" Christ." By showing us our penal debt, and

the high terms of the covenant of works, now impossible for the sinner to fulfill, it prepares his soul to submit to the right- eousness of the Redeemer. A third, and equally essential use appears to the believer, after his adoption. He is " chosen in Christ that he should be holy " ; " redeemed from all iniquity to be Christ's peculiar people, zealous of good works." This great end, the believer's sanctification, can only be attained in practice, by giving him a holy rule of conduct. Such a rule is the Law. It is to be as assiduously observed, as the guide to that holiness which is the fruit of adoption, as though its observance could earn adoption. A fourth important purpose of the publication of the Law in the Church, appears in this ; that its precepts restrain the aboundings of sin. They partially instruct the consciences even of the unrenewed. They guide secular laws, and thus lay a foundation for a wholesome civil society. And last : the publication of the Law is preparatory for that use which God will make of it in the Judgment Day, for the conviction of His enemies. He is now, in every such message, preparing to close the mouths of the disobedient in that day.

For these reasons, the preaching and expounding of the Law is to be kept up diligently, in every gospel Church.

The whole decalogue is found written out in full, in two places of the Bible ; besides a number of Summary^o°"Duty.° ^ other places, where one or more of the pre- cepts is cited. These places are Exodus XX : 2 to 17, andDeut. v: 6 to 21. It is the doctrine of the Cate- chism, that these "Ten Words " were intended to be a summary of man's whole duty. Why, it may be asked, is so much made of them ? Why not make equal account of some few verses taken from the Proverbs, or the Sermon on the Mount? We reply : the manner of their publication plainly showed that God intended to give them the peculiar importance we assign them. They were uttered by Him, to His Church, in an audi- ble voice, £;c oco.rayaz dyyihov, '(Acts vii : 53), with the terrible adjuncts of clouds, and thunders, and lightnings, and the sound of a trumpet. They were the only parts of Revelation thus spoken. " These words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and the thick darkness ; with a great voice ; and He added no more," Deut. v : 22. None of the ceremonial nor civic rules were thus distinguished. These ten precepts were then graven by God Himself on two tables oi stone ; the imperishable material signifying the perpetuity of the laws — and these tab-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 355

les were to be kept among the most sacred things of their rehgion. Christ, in giving that summary of man's duty into the two precepts of love to God, and love to man, is evidently abridging the Decalogue. He says that on these two abridged commands, hang all the law and the prophets. Therefore all the Old Testament hangs on the Decalogue, of which these two are the epitome. These are the grounds, together with the obvious comprehensiveness and perfection of the ten precepts, (which will be evinced in their exposition) on which the Jewish and Christian Churches have always held this Decalogue to be designed as the epitome of the whole Law.

Expositors have not been entirely agreed in the division of n- -H H ■? ^^^ Decalogue. Some would have it, that

ow m e . ^^^ precepts belonged to the first table, and

five to the second. This opinion seems to be dictated only by a fondness for mechanical symmetry. It is now generally held, that four precepts composed the first table, and six the second. This is the natural division. Of the duties enjoined in the first four, God is the direct object : of those inculcated in the last six, man is the direct object. Thus we conform our division to our Saviour's summary, love to God and love to man. Some have supposed that they found an evidence of this division in the words of the Apostle Paul, when he calls the fifth the " first commandment with promise." It is observed that this is not the first containing a promise, if the first table be included ; whence they suppose that the Apostle calls it first, with reference to the second table, at the head of which it stood.

It remains that we settle the principles upon which the Rules of Interpreta- decalogue is to be interpreted and applied, tion — The Precepts are If it is an epitome of duty, it contains of Spiritual. course more than the formal propositions in

which it is verbally expressed. The first and most important of those principles is that announced by St. Paul in the 7th of Romans : ' The Law is spiritual' It claims to regulate, not only the acts, but the desires and thoughts, the inner as well as the outer man. For farther proof, note that Christ, in His exposition (Matt, v,) expressly extends the prohibitions to the secret motions of the heart towards sin. Causless anger is declared to be the soul's sin of murder; lust is the soul's adult- ery ; coveting, as Paul indicates, is the soul's theft. I prove the same rule from this : that Christ resolves all duties into love, which is an inward state of affection. And last, the same rule must follow from the spiritual nature of the God whose law it is. He claims to be the ' Searcher of Hearts.' He judgeth not by the outward appearance. ' He requireth truth in the inward parts.' The law of such a being must apply chiefly to the inward affections, as our reason approves.

Second : In each precept, the chief duty or sin is taken as

356 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The Sin or Duty representative of the various lesser duties or Named is Representa- sins of that class ; and the overt act is taken ^^^- as representative of all related affections, and

under it they are all enjoined or forbidden. Thus, our Saviour teaches us- that under the head of murder, angry thoughts and abusive words are also forbidden. We are authorizec^ by such examples to conclude that under the one precept, ' Thou shalt not kill,' all offences against our fellow-men's lives, safety, and personal welfare, are forbidden. So of the other commandments. This follows from the fact that the decalogue is a summary.

3. To command a given class of duties plainly implies a

prohibition of the opposite class of sins, and _ Commandment Implied .^,1^^ ^,gysa. Thus: Injuries against the life

m Prohibition, (XC. r r n r ^ ■ ^ ^ i •

and person 01 teilows are lorbidden ; this implies the obligation of active efforts to protect them, as we have opportunity. This follows from the practical scope of the law. What is the design or intent of the sixth commandment ? Obviously to secure our fellows the enjoyment of life and safety. If, then, the obligation is adequate to the practical end, it must include active efforts to promote, as well as refraining from in- juring, that end. This is confirmed by our Saviour's summa- tion : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" Hence, while the 6th commandment says, " Thou shalt not kill ;" it also means, "Thou shalt save thy fellow from killing."

4. When anything is commanded or forbidden, the regular

and necessary means and incitements thereto Means Included in ^^.^ ^jg^ commanded or forbidden. And

when any duty of one party towards another is enjoined, the relative state or duty thereto is also enjoined on the second party towards the first.

5. The precepts of the first table, containing duties towards God before Man : God, are superior in obligation to the second

Moral Precepts before table, towards man. See Luke xiv : 26 ; Positive. Mz.\X. V : 37 ; Acts iv : 19 ; Eph. vi : i. When-

ever the authority of man clashes with that of God, the former must therefore give way. But moral duties, though they be duties of the second table, are superior to mere positive or cer- emonial duties of the first table. See Matt, xii : 7 ; Prov. xxi : 3.

Last. The prohibitory precepts bind us equally at all times ; the mandatory, only when the proper ^^Prohibitions Perpetu- objects of the duty are present. The pre- cept " Thou shalt not kill," binds at every moment; the command, "Honour thy father and mother," only binds when we bear suitable relations to some superior.

Many Socinians and Abolitionists, and sorne Papists, in

t: Tl L P f t o'"^^'* to support favourite prejudices, strenu-

— Christ made no ously assert that the moral law, as given to

Changes of Substance, the Jews, was an imperfect rule, and was com-

because Immutable. pj^^^j ^^^^ perfected by Jesus Christ. We

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 35/

grant, indeed, that Christ freed this law from the corrupt glosses of tradition, and that He showed the true extent of its appli- cation. But we deny that He made any change or substantial addition. We admit that He carried it farther in the way of detail, but we deny that He corrected anything of its principle. These errorists pretend to claim this as an honour to Jesus Christ aifd His mission, and as evincing His superiority over Moses. They hereby do Him dishonour. For the decalogue is as much Christ's law as the Sermon on the Mount. He was the authoritative agent for giving both. For it was " with the Angel which spake unto him in Mount Sinai," (Christ, Acts vii: 38) that Moses "received these lively oracles to give unto us " Second : It would be dishonorable to a perfect God to suppose that He would reveal to His chosen people, as a rule of right- eousness, a law which allowed some sin. Then, all the holiness produced under that law was spurious. Third: God forbade that the law should receive addition. Deut. iv : 2 ; xii : 32. Fourth : Christ honoured this law, declared it everlasting and unchange- able, and said that He came not to destroy, but to fulfil it. Fifth : Christ says that on His abridgments of this law hang all the law and the prophets. And last : St. Paul, having resolved the precepts of this decalogue into the one principle of love (Rom. xiii : 9), verse loth says : "Love is fulfilling of the law." This is said by this minister of the new dispensation. And both the Old and New Testaments assert the perfection of this Old Testament law. See Ps. xix : 7 ; Rom. vii: 12; Ps. cxix : 96. In further support of this view, I remark that the very par- ticulars in which it is pretended Jesus amend- Precepts of New Tes- ^ softened, and completed the moral law,

tament also in Old. ' ' ,.. '^ .

are stated just as distmctly, although perhaps not as forcibly in all cases, by Moses and the prophets, in their expositions of the decalogue. E. g., the love of enemies, in Matt. V : 44; see it in Exod. xxiii : 4, 5, Levit. xix : 18. The great law^s of love of Matt, xxii : T,y, &c. ; see Deut. vi : 4, 5, Levit. xix : 18. The command of benevolence to strangers in Luke X : 36, 37: see it in Levit. xxiv : 22, xxv : 35, Deut. x : 19. The spiritual interpretation of the law, as embracing not only outward acts, but the thoughts and desires of the heart ; see Levit. xix : 17, 18, Deut. xi : 13, Ps. xxiv : 4, li : 6. Christ's new commandment (Jno. xiii : 34) was only " the old command renewed," only a re-enactment with an additional motive : Christ's love for us. Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, then, and other places, rebukes and corrects, not the law itself, nor the Old Testament interpretations of the law, but the erroneous and wicked corruptions foisted upon it by traditions and Phari- saic glosses. The moral law could not be completed, because it is as perfect as God, of whose character it is the impress and transcript. It cannot be abrogated or relaxed, because it is as immutable as He.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. vii: 12

SYLLABUS

1. What does the First Commandment enjoin? ^\^lat does it forbid ?

2. Discuss, against Papists, tlie worship of saints, angels and reUcs.

3. ^\^lat does the Second Commandment forbid and enjoin ?

4. Discuss, against Papists, the lawfulness of image-worship.

5. What does the Third Commandment forbid and enjoin? Are religious vows and oaths, imposed by magistrates, lawful ? See

Shorter Catechism, Qu. 44-56. Larger Cat., Qu. 100-114. Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 7-12. Dick, Lect. 103. Calvin's Inst., bk. ii, ch. 8, § 13-27. Dr. Green's Lectures on Sh. Cat., 37-41. Council of Trent Decree, Session xxv. (Strietwolff, Vol. i, p. 93, &c.) Catechisnnis Romanus, Pii V, pt. iii ch. 2, Qu. 3-14, and pt. iv, ch. 6 on 2nd Question. " Historical Theologj'," by Dr. Wm. Cunningham, ch. 12.

TN the exposition of the precepts, I do not propose to detain you with those ordinary particulars which you may find in your catechisms and text-books. I would, once for all, refer you to those authorities, especially for answers to the question, what each commandment especially enjoins and prohibits. My chief aim, in the few, disjointed discussions which time will allow, is to enter into a few of .the more disputed and more im- portant questions of morals and ecclesiastical usag.e, which now agitate society and the Church.

I. The affirmative and negative obligations of the ist

Commandment all depend upon the great

Scope of the ist j-j-yj-h of God's exclusive unity, which we

Commandment , , . 1 r- • , t-i

have proved Irom reason and Scripture. 1 he

duty of " having Him for our God" may be said to be the sum- mary of almost all the commands of love, reverence and obedi- ence, which so abound in the Scriptures. But we may say that includes especially, under the general idea of rendering Him all the affection and service which our nature. His character, and our relations to Him require ; the following : The duty, (a) of loving Him supremely. (See Matt, xxii : 37). (b) Of regulating all our moral acts by His revealed will Matt, xxviii : 20. (c) Of owning and acknowledging Him publicly. Josh, xxiv : 22. (d) Of promoting His cause and glory in all suitable ways, i Cor. X : 31. (e) Of rendering to Him such acts of religious worship as He may see fit to demand. Ps. xxix : 2. (f) Of thanking Him for His benefits. Ps. cvi : i. (g) Of trusting to His promises. Is. xxvi : 4. (h) Of submitting to His chas- tisements. I Pet. V : 6. (i) Fearing His anger. Ps. Ixxxvi : II. (j) Repenting of having sinned against Him, Acts xvii : 30, and in short, (k) Choosing Him as the portion and eternal inheritance of our souls. Ps. Ixxiiii : 25 ; xvii : 15.

The most current breach of this commandment in nomi- 358

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 359

nally Christian communities, is doubtless the Sin of Idolatrous Af- ^-^^ ^^ inordinate affections. Scripture brands these as idolatry, or the worshipping of an- other than the true God, especially in the case of covetousness ; (Eph. V : 5 ; Col. iii : 5 ; Job xxxi : 24-28.) and parity of rea- soning extends the teaching to all other inordinate desires. We conceive formal idolatry, as that of the Hindoo, a very foolish and flagrant thing; we palliate this spiritual idolatry of pas- sions. God classes them together, in order to show us the enor- mity of the latter. What then is it, that constitutes the " having of God for our God?" It includes, (a) Love for Him stronger than all other affections, (b) Trusting Him, as our highest por- tion aud source of happiness, (c) Obeying and serving Him supremely, (d) Worshipping Him as He requires. Now that thing to which we render these regards and services, is our God, whether it be gold, fame, power, pleasure, or friends.

Rome's worship of saints and angels is founded on her 2. Romish Idolatry, assertion of their heavenly mediation for us, Founded on Creature which she asserts, against I Tim. ii : 5. You Mediation. ^jH ^^^^ ^]^jg gj-ror discussed and refuted in

your Senior year, when we come to treat and defend the sole mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I shall now anticipate that conclusion, as the basis of my denial of the worship of crea- tures ; only adding that, if you feel curiosity concerning Rome's defence of it, you may find her arguments in the places cited from the documents of the Council of Trent.

But as there is no heavenly mediation of angels or saints, we argue the more, that no intelligent wor- Saint' wSp. '''^'''"'^ ship can be paid them, without idolatry, (a) Because there are no examples nor precepts for it in the Bible. The honour due superiors is social and political ; between which and religious worship, there is a fun- damental difference. In all the cases cited by Rome, of the. wor- shipping of creature-angels, there was only a hospitable and deferential obeisance to persons supposed to be dignified stran- gers and human beings. Where there was worship proper, it was always the Angel of the Covenant, the Son of God, who was worshipped. Compare Gen. xviii : 2, and xix : i, with Gen. xviii : 22, 23, we learn that of the persons to whom Abraham did social obeisance as respectable guests and human beings, the one to whom Abraham actually prayed, was the Jehovah-Christ ; and the others were creature-angels in human form. But the student is referred to the argument on the pre-existence of Christ, Lect. xvii ; where it is proved that all these cases of worship of the " angel," were cases of homage offered to Christ.

(b) Inspired saints and creature-angels are represented in every case, as repudiating proper religious worship, when attempted towards them, with holy abhorrence. See Matt, iv : 10; Acts xiv : 13-15 ; Rev. xix : 10; xxii : 9.

3^0 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Rome herself acknowledges, (Cat. Rom. Pt. Ill, Ch. 2, Qu. , ., , ^^ , 4, or Pt. IV, Ch. 6, Qu. 3), it would be idola-

Aov/eia also Idola- t . i • , ' -.i ,

ti-ous. "y "-^ worship creatures with the same sort

of worship paid to God. Here then, their doctors bring in their distinction of h/xniia and oooXtia to jus- tify themselves. This distinction is utterly vain and empty. Because first, the u.sage neither of classic nor bibhcal Greek justifies it; nor that of the primitive Fathers. The one word, as much as the other, is used of the worship peculiar to God Himself. See Matt, vi : 24 ; i Thess. i : 9, &c. The Galatians are rebuked for having served those who by nature are no Gods. (Ch. iv : 8), idouAsuaars. If then the doo/.sca of the New Testament is that of Rome, the case is decided. But let us see how they distinguish their dooXda. Here we say, second : that it is religious worship. This is proved by its being rendered in Church (God"s house), at the altar, in the midst of their litur- gies, on God's holy day, and mixed with God's own worship. This confusion at least is unpardonable. Third: in practice they do not limit themselves to dookeia but ask of the saints, and especially of Mary, gifts most essentially divine ; not inter- cession merely, but protection, pardon, sanctification, victory over death. Here see Romish Breviaries, passim; and the Stabat Mater. Daniel's Thesaurus Hymnolog, vol. 2, p. 133. Streitwolff, Libri. Symbolici, vol. 2, p. 343, &c. Fourth, even if only intercession were asked, the doulv.a would still imply in the saints omnipresence, omniscience, infinite goodness, and such-like divine attributes. To evade this crushing objection, some Romish doctors have advanced their figment of the Speculum Triiiitatis. They imagine that the saints, blessed with the beatific vision of God, see reflected in His omniscience whatever He sees, at least of the wants ' and petitions of the Church. But besides the fatal lack of Scriptural warrant, this figment is absurd. For to see an overwhelming multitude of objects at once, in a mirror, reflected, will confound a finite mind as much as to see them directly. And besides, the figment contradicts Scripture, Matt, xxiv : 36 ; John xv : 1 5 ; i Cor. ii : 1 1 . Rome's saint- and angel-worship is but baptized paganism,

and like all other, it tends to degrade the Moral effects of i • tt ^i • i^ r i.i

Creature-Worship. worshipers. Hence, the importance ot the

prohibition of idolatry. Nothing but infinite perfection should be the object of religious worship. The rev- erence and admiration which worship implies invest every quality of the object worshiped with sanctity. Blemishes are always reproduced in the votaries. The worship of an imper- fect object is therefore the deification of defects. Rom. i : 25, 26; Ps. cxv : 8. But the more the worshiper is corrupted, the more degraded will be the divinities which he will construct for himself out of his defiled heart, until the vile descent is realized V. Ivxh St. Paul describes in Rom. i : 22. 23.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 36 1

As the first commandment fixes the object, so the second fixes the mode of religious worship. Under

3. Scope of Second ^\^^^ most extreme corruption of mode which

Commandment. . . . '^ , . ,,

consists in miage-worship, all erroneous modes of homage to the true God even, are prohibited. It may be said in general, that this commandment requires those acts and modes of worship for the true God which He hath required of us in His word, and prohibits all others. What Protestants call will-worship is forbidden, on these obvious grounds : God is infinite, and, in large part, inscrutable to crea- ture minds. It is His prerogative to reveal Himself to us, as He has done. If we form surmises how He is to be honoured, they will be partially erroneous ; for error belongs to man. Hence (as experience too fully confirms), the offering of worship of human invention to God has always dishonoured Him, and corrupted the worshipers. Our Saviour, therefore, expressly condemns it. Matt, xv : 9.

The doctrine of Rome concerning the use of images in

worship, with its defence, may be seen in the

4. Image \V orslnp. ^^^ ^^^^ p^ jjj^ ^^_ 2, Qu. 9-I4 inclusive.

You will there remark the curious arrangement which makes our second commandment a part of, or appendix to the first, and usually prints it with small type. While this claims some little patristic countenance, its object is undoubtedly to depre- ciate this command. As the number of ten precepts is too well fixed to be called in question, Rome attempts to make it up by dividing the loth, without shadow of valid reason, as we shall see.

Rome grants (Qu. 12) that the Deity should not be repre- sented by any shape, because immense and Romish Excuses. inconceivable. To concede thus much, in- deed, was unavoidable ; the prohibitions are so plain. But to excuse her image-worship, Qu. 13th teaches that the making of images of persons of the Trinity is no wrong, for this, when correctly understood, is no attempt to represent the Divine essence ; it only expresses the property and actions which the Scriptures give the Persons. Thus, the Father is represented, in supposed imitation of Daniel vii : 9, as a hoary old man ; the Son in a human figure ; and the Holy Ghost, after Matt, iii: 16, as a dove. The idea of trinity in unity is usually repre- sented as a luminous triangle.

To this evasion I reply, are not the Persons very God ? Is not their essence one, and properly divine ? How, then, can it be right to picture them, and wrong to picture Deity ? If we may use the image of the Person, because it is designed to represent some act or property of it, why not of the Deity? Indeed, the luminous triangle is an attempt to represent the latter.

Rome urges also that to figure or picture objects of wor-

362 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ship cannot be wrong, because God has done God's Example no -^^ ^[q appears as a man in Gen, xviii, and Rule to Us. . ^ -"^^ .. , . -r- . ...

HI Gen. xxxu : 24; as an angel in l^xod. ni :

2; as a shekinah, 2 Chron. vii : i. The Holy Ghost appears as a dove, Matt, iii : 16. God also commanded the cherubim to be placed in the most sacred part of the oracle, at the very part towards which the High Priest directed his worship. God also directed Moses to make a brazen serpent and elevate it upon a pole. Numb, xxi : 8.

Now, the general and sufficient answer to this is, that God's doing a thing Himself is no warrant whatever for us to presume on imitating Him. May we kill people at will, because He slays some thirty millions annually? His precepts are our rule, not the acts of His own sovereignty, which His incom- municable attributes properly render unique and inimitable. The representations which God has seen fit to make of Him- self to one and another prophet were temporary, not perman- ent, occasional — yea, rare — presented only to the prophet's own private eye, not to the Church customarily ; and they were, after all, phantasmata, impressed on the prophet's imag- ination in esctatic vision — not actual, material constructions, like the idols of men. Chiefly, as visions, they were true, for they were to the prophets symbols of some special presence of God, and God was in some way specially present then and there. But these figures, when used by Papists, are symbols of no such truth ; for God has not authorized them to expect any special presence where they exhibit the images. They are therefore false, while God's visions were true.

The carved Cherubim over the mercy-seat were not idols

at all, but merely architectural ornaments, inScri\"i!rT'^^°''^'^ having, indeed a symbolical fitness, but no

more objects of worship than the knops and lilies of the carving. The brazen serpent too, was a type, and not an object of worship. As well might the Papist bring as a plea, the fact that God has represented Christ by bread and wine. See Jno. iii : 14. Especially since the coming of the antitype, has this case not a shadow of force to excuse idolatry. That its worship was never permitted is clearly shown by 2d Kings xviii : 4 ; where we read that the good King Hezekiah, detecting the Jews in this error, had the identical serpent crushed, saying "it is brazen." ("It is but brass.") As to the picturing and worshipping of the man Jesus, the delineation of His human person has more shadow of reason, because He is incarnate. But there is no portrait or description of Christ, which is authentic. If there was, He is now, when glorified, wholly unlike it. Chiefly; an image could only represent His humanity, as distinguished from His divinity; and the former, thus abstracted, is no proper object of worship. The use of the crucifix in worship, therefore, tendeth to evil.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 363

3. The Council of Trent urges that the image is not itself

regarded as divine ; but only as a visible rep-

AU Idolaters profess resentation, to assist the unlearned especially, to look above the idol. . . . , ^ , ^ . . ^ '

in conceiving the real presence ot the invisi- ble. To this I reply: it is just the distinction which all the pagans make, except the most besotted. Does any one sup- pose that the acute Hindoo is so stupid as to mistake the lump of clay or wood, which yesterday was a clod or a stick, and which he saw helpless in the hands of the mechanic, for a true God? If charged with such folly, he makes precisely the Pap- ist's reply : that he worships the invisible God through the help of the visible representation of Him. So answered the ancient idolaters to the primitive Christians. By adopting it, the Pap- ist puts himself, where he properly belongs, in the pagan cate- gory. And this is the very sin which the Scriptures intend to prohibit. An examination of the sin with Aaron's calf, Exod. xxxii, of Micah's idolatry. Judges xvii : 3-13, and of the sin of Jeroboam, i Kings xii : 28, &c., will show that in each case the criminal attempt was to worship the true Jehovah, unmis- takeably recognized by His incommunicable name, or as He who brought Israel out of Egypt, through an image supposed appropriate.

4. To worship the true God by an image is, then, the very ... J. r thing forbidden, because such a representa-

ition of Idolatry in tion is necessarily false. For, God being a Scripture Cases. God spiritual, immense, and invisible Being, to inimitable. represent Him as a limited material form, is,

a falsehood. To clothe Him with the form of any of His crea- tures, angelic, human, or animal, is the most heinous hisult to His majesty. God is a Spirit, cognizable by no sense. To represent Him by a material, visible and palpable image or pic- ture is a false representation. He is omnipresent. To draw or carve Him as bounded by an outline, and contained in a local form, belies this attribute. He is self-existent, and has no beginning. To represent Him by what His puny creature made, and ^ what yesterday was not, belies His self-existence and eternity. He declares Himself utterly unlike all creatures, and incomprehensible by them. To liken Him to any of them is both a misrepresentation and insult. Hence, a material image of the Godhead, or of any Person thereof, is an utter falsehood. Papists used to be fond of saying : " Images are the books of the unlearned." We reply: they are books then, which teach lies only. The crowning argument against them, is that the Scriptures expressly forbid them ; and equally plainly, base their prohibition on the fact that no image can cor- rectly represent God. Deut. iv : 15, 16; Is. xl : 12-18; Acts xvii : 29. " Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire), lest you

364 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image," &c.

You are familiar with the answer to our last head of in- quiry, which says the third Commandment Commandment. "^ requireth the holy and reverent use of God's name, titles attributes, ordinances, word, and works ; " and forbiddeth all profaning or abusing of any- thing whereby God maketh Himself known." The scope of this precept is to secure a reverential treatment of God and all that suggests Him, in our speech and other jnedia of communi- cation, with each other. Its practical importance is justified by what the Apostle James teaches us of the responsibility and influence of our faculty of speech. When you read his state- ments, and consider how fully experience justifies them; when you consider the large place which this power of communicat- ing ideas fills in society, you will see why God has elevated the sanctification of the tongue into a place among the " ten words."

Every christian is familiar with the idea that this precept is meant to prohibit sins of profane cursing Sins forbidden in it. ^^^ swearing in all their forms. Among these abuses may also be classed all irreverent uses of Sacred Scripture ; all heartless and formal worship, whether by pray- ing or singing ; all irreverence and levity in the house of God during the celebration of His worship or sacraments ; all heed- ejaculations of His name and attributes ; and most flagrantly, perjury. This, the crowning crime of this class, is a breach both of the third and ninth Commandments. It violates the obligations of truth ; and also violates those of reverence in the most flagrant manner. An oath is an appeal to God for the sanction of the asseveration then made. It invokes all His attributes in the most formal manner, to act as umpires between the parties, and if the asseveration is falsified, to witness and avenge it. Where an oath is falsely taken, it is a heaven-dar- ing attempt to enlist the Almighty in the sanction of the crea- ture's lie ; and is thus, either the most outrageous levity, or the most outrageous impiety, of which he can be guilty.

But we do not hold that the reverential occasional use of

religious vows, or the serious taking of the

VowTnol F^orbJdde'n".'^ O'-^t^ from the civil magistrate, is a breach of

this commandment. You are aware that the

Quakers, and some other Christians hold all oaths unlawful.

We base our view on the following reasons :

Moses expressly commands the people to swear by the name of Jehovah, whenever they did swear. Deut. vi : 13. This surely implies that there is a right, and proper time to swear. The Israelites were carefully instructed how to swear. Levit. xix : 12. Oaths were appointed to be administered by Divine authority, in certain cases. Exod. xxii : i r ; Numb, v : 19. Surely God would not require His people to sin ! We

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 365

find that God sware ; and " because He could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself." His example is worthy of mention here, although we do not presume a right to make it our rule in every case. We find that the apostles also, and especially Paul, frequently appealed to God in oaths. Rom. i : 9; 2 Cor. i : 23 ; Gal. i : 20. These expressions involve all the essentials of an oath. But we have a more indisputable exam- ple. Jesus Christ took an oath, when it was tendered to Him by Caiaphas the High Priest, acting as an authorized (though a wicked) magistrate of his people. Matt, xxvi : 63, 64. When the Chief Priest said: "I adjure Thee (I swear Thee) by the living God," Christ, who had before refused to respond, imme- diately gave an affirmative answer, thereby taking the oath, tendered Him. Let it be noticed, also, that in this He was act- ing in His human capacity. These New Testament examples also effectually estop the plea, untenable in all cases, that legis- lation given by Moses was corrected by Christ, so that the lat- ter made things sins, which Moses made right. For all this was under the new dispensation, or at least after the utterance of the commands by Christ which furnish the argument of the Quakers.

Those commands are found in Matt, v : 34 and 37 ; Jas. v : 12. Their claim is, that these prohibitions in^N^ewTifameS!''^ ^^^ meant to forbid oaths under all possible circumstances ; that the language is absolute, and we have no right to limit it. I reply, that if this view be pressed, all that is gained will be to represent Christ and Paul as expressly violating the new law. An understanding of the circumstances relieves the case. The Jewish elders had cor- rupted the third commandment by teaching that a man might interlard his common conversation with oaths, provided he did not swear falsely. They also taught that one might swear by anything else than the name of God, as his own head, or Jeru- salem. Against these corruptions our Saviour's precept is aimed. In our common intercourse we are not to swear at all, because the suitable and solemn juncture is lacking. When that juncture is present, what more reasonable than the appeal to God; that God who is, by His omniscience and providence, the actual witness and umpire of all such declarations. But, in conclusion, it is a great abuse for the magistrate to multiply oaths on frivolous occasions.

SYLLABUS

1. What is required and forbidden in the Fourth Commandment? Shorter Catechism, Qu. 57-62. Larger Cat., Qu. 115-121.

2. How is tlie Sabbatli to be sanctified ?

Larger Cat, Qu. 117-120. Ridgeley, Qu. 117, 118.

3. Give the practical reasons for the careful observance of the Sabbath. Larger Cat., Qu. 120, 121. Justin Edwards' "Sabbath-Manual."

4. Is the observance of the Lord's day now binding. jti7-e divino? (a) Because the Sabbath was in force before Moses ; (b) The commandment is moral and perpet- ual, not merely positive; (c) The New Testament teaches this, when properly explained; (d) ist day substituted for 7th by divine authority; (e) History of opin- ions and usages.

Jonathan Edwards' Sermons, 13, 14, 15, Vol. vi. Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 13, 14. Calvin, Inst., bk. ii, ch. 8, § 28-34. Commentaries on Matt, xii, and Col. ii : 16, 17. Appendix, to Fairbairn's Typology, 2nd Edit. Dr. Green's Lec- tures 42, 43. Neander's " Planting and Training," Vol. i, ch. v,. Augsburg Conf. and Luther's Catechism. Genevan Cat. of Calvin. Racovian Cat.. Dr. Nicholas Bound, " Sabbatum Veteris et Novi Test." Hodge, Theol., Vol. iii, ch. 19, ^ 8.

' I ^HERE is, perhaps, no subject of Christian practice on which

there is, among sincere Christians, more practical diversity

and laxity of conscience than the duty of

^Diversity Accounted 5^^^^^!, observance. We find that, in theory,

almost all Protestants now profess the views once peculiar to Presbyterians and other Puritans ; but, in actual life, there is, among good people, a variety of usages, from a laxity which would almost have satisfied the party of Archbishop Laud, up to the sacred strictness of the " Sabba- tarians" whom he and his adherents reviled and persecuted. It is a curious question : how it has come about that the con- sciences of devout and sincere persons have allowed them such hcense of disobedience to a duty acknowledged and important ; while on other points of obligation equally undisputed, the Christian world endeavors, at least, to maintain the appearance of uniform obedience. The solution is probably to be found, in part, in the historical fact, of which many intelligent Chris- tians are not aware — that the communions founded at the Reformation, were widely and avowedly divided in opinion as to the perpetuity of the Sabbath obligation. A number of the Reformation churches, including some of the purest, professed that they saw no obligation in the Scriptures to any peculiar Sabbath observance; and the neglect of everything except attendance on the public exercise of Christianity, and that ces- sation of secular labor required by secular statutes was, in them, at least consistent. Now the descendants of these communions, in this mixed country, live dispersed among the descendants of Presbyterians and Puritans ; and while they no longer defend 366

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. ' 36/

the looser theory of their forefathers, they retain the tradition- ary practices and customs in their use of the sacred day. Thus, by example and the general intermingling of religions, a remiss usage is propagated, which is far beneath the present professed theory of Protestant Christendom. And hence, we conceive that it will be interesting and profitable to give a history of opinions on this subject, before we proceed to that full discus- sion of the whole grounds of our belief and practice which we shall attempt.

It may be stated then, in general terms, that since the

primitive times of Christianity, two diverse l;JZt. ° P ^ '^ ^ ° " ' opinions have prevailed in the Christian world.

The first is that .adopted by the Romish, Lu- theran, and most of the continental communions in Europe, in- cluding, it must be confessed, those founded by Calvin, This theory teaches that the proper sanctification of one day from every seven was a ceremonial, typical, and Jewish custom, established when the Levitical institutions were introduced ; and, of course, abrogated by the better dispensation, along with the rest of the typical shadows. The Lord's day is, indeed, worthy of observance as a Christian festival, because it is the weekly memorial of the blessed resurrection, and the example of the primitive Church commends it ; not because its obli- gation is now jure divino. The cessation of our worldly labors is a beneficent and commendable civil institution ; and while the magistrates enjoin it, is, for this reason, of course to be prac- tised by all good citizens. Public and associated worship is also a duty of Christians ; and, in order that it may be associated, it must be upon a stated day and hour ; and what day so appro- priate as this, already famous for the great event of the new dispensation, and set apart by civil laws from the purposes of business. But this is all. To observe the whole day as a reli- gious rest, under the supposition of a religious obligation, would be to Judaize, to remand ourselves to the bondage of the old and darker dispensation.

The second opinion is that embodied in the Westminster symbols, and, to the honour of Presbyterianism be it said, first avowed in modern times, even among Protestants, by that party in England. This is, that the setting apart of some stated por- tion of our time to the special and exclusive worship of God, is a duty of perpetual and moral obligation (as distinguished from postive or ceremonial), and that our Maker has, from the cre- ation, and again on Sinai, appointed for all races and ages, that this portion shall be one day out of seven. But when the cere- monial dispensation of Levi was superadded to this and the other institutions of the original, patriarchal religion, the seventh day did) in addition, become a type and a Levitical holy-day ; and the theory admits that this feature has passed away with the Jewish ceremonial. After the resurrection of Christ, the per-

368 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

petual Divine obligation of a religious rest was transferred to the first day of the week, and thence to the end of the world, the Lord's day is the Christian's Sabbath, by Divine and apos- tolic appointment, and is to be observed with the same religious spirit enjoined upon the patriarchs, and the Israelites, abating those features which proceeded from its ceremonial use among the latter, and from their theocratic government.

Among the advocates of the first opinion is to be adduced first the Roman Catholic communion. This apa pinion. statement must, however, be made with quali-

fication ; for the "Romish Catechism" of Pope Pius V., em- bodying the opinions of the Council of Trent (P. iii, ch. iv), treats of the Lord's day more scripturally, in some respects, than many Protestants. But this correctness of opinion is griev- ously marred by the doctrine, that the other Church holidays are sustained by equal authority with the Lord's day — the authoritative tradition of the Church. Bellarmine also argues that it must be allowable to the true Church to make the obser- vance of sacred days of human appointment binding on the conscience, because otherwise the Church would have no sacred days at all, since none whatever are enjoined in the New Testa- ment. This reasoning obviously proceeds upon the assumption that there is no other sort of obligation for the Lord's day than for a Church festival. The well-known practice of Romish Christians, prevalent in all Popish countries, and unrebuked by the priesthood, sustains exactly that theory of Sabbath observ- ance which we first described. After the duties of confession and hearing mass are performed in the morning, the rest of the holy-day is unhesitatingly devoted to idleness, amusements, or actual vice.

The Lutheran communion, as ordered by Luther, Melanc- thon, and their coadjutors, held that it was pinion. lawful and proper for Church authorities to ordain days, and rites not contrary to the letter or spirit of Scripture, but additional to those appointed therein. It was, indeed, one of the most constant and noble parts of their testimony against Rome, that it was spiritual tyranny for any Church authority, however legitimate, to ordain anything con- trary to the letter or spirit of Scripture, or to enforce any ordi- nance of human authority, however innocent, as binding on the Christian conscience, or as necessary to acceptance with God. But they taught that the rulers of the Church might lawfully institute rites, ordinances and holy-days, consonant to the Word of God, though additional to those set down in it; and that they might lawfully change such ordinances, from time to time, as convenience and propriety required. But they could only invite, they could not compel the compliance of their brethren ; and this compliance was to be rendered, not of necessity, but from considerations of Christian comity, peace and conveni--

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 369

ence. When days or ordinances additional to St'.ripture were thus enjoined, and thus observed, it was held proper, lawful and praiseworthy, in both rulers and ruled. And the Lutheran sym- bols expressly assert that it was by this kind of Church au- thority, and not jure divino, that the observance of the Lord's day obtained among Christians ; and that it could not be scrip- turally made binding on the conscience of Christians any more than the observance of Easter or Christmas, or of any other day newly instituted by a Church court, in accordance with Christian convenience and edification. They also teach that the Sabbath, with its strict and enforced observances, was purely a Levitical institution. In the 28th article of the Augsburg Con- fession, which treats of " the power of- the bishops or clergy," we find the following [We will take the liberty of italicising those phrases which we wish to be particularly weighed] : " What, then, should be held concerning Sunday and other similar Church ordinances and ceremonies ?" To this our party make the following reply : That the bishops or pastors may make regulations, in order that things may be carried on orderly in the Church, not in order to obtain the grace of God, nor yet in order to atone for sins, or to bind the consciences of men with them, to hold them as necessary services of God, and to regard them as if they commit sin, if they break them without offence to others. Thust St. Paul, in the Corinthians, ordains that the women in the congregation should cover their heads ; I Cor. xi : 5. * * * * "In like mannef is the regulation concerning Sunday, concerning Easter, concerniftg Pentecost, and the like holy-days and rites. Those, then, who are of opinion that the regulation of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, was established as a thing necessary, err very much. For the Holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and it teaches that all cere- monies of the old law, since the revelation of the Gospel, may be discontinued. And yet, as it was of need to ordain a certain day, so that the people might know when they should assemble, tJie Christian Church ordained Sunday for that very purpose, and possessed rather more inclination and willingness for this alter- ation, in order that the people might have an example of Chris- tian liberty, that they might know that neither the observance of the Sabbath, nor of any other day, is indispensable." Me- lancthon, in the 8th article of his " apology," (" Of human ordinances in the Church,'") briefly asserts the same view. " Fur- ther, the most ancient ordinances however in the Church, as the tliree chief festivals, Sundays, and the like, which were estab- lished for the sake of order, union and tranquility, we observe with willingness. And with regard to these, our teachers preach to the people in the most commendatory manner ; in the mean- time, however, holding forth the view, that they do not justify before God."

The evangehcal Christians of Germany seem now to appre- 24*

370 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

hend the prime necessity of a stricter Sabbath-observance for the interests of piety ; and have recently combined to promote it. But it will be vain for them to attempt to engraft such a reform on this doctrinal theory of Lutheranism. No plausible tampering with a doctrine so fundamentally erroneous will suffice. The connection between a false theory and a vicious practice is too inevitable. If the reform is to be established successfully, its foundation must be laid in the retraction of these opinions, and the explicit adoption of the Presbyterian theory of the Lord's day.

It may here be added, that the Mennonite Church, both in Europe and America, holds substantially the Lutheran ideas of the Sabbath, and that their practice is influenced by them in a similar way. When this communion, led by Menno Simonis, set about ridding themselves of the reproach of fanatical Anabap- tism, they were careful to assume so much of the prevalent religion as they could consistently with their essential peculi- arities, in order to substantiate their plea that they were no longer a radical, political sect, but a proper, evangelical denomi- nation. The prevalent Protestantism of those countries was Lutheran ; and hence the theology of the Mennonites, and their ideas of Sabbath observance, are largely Lutheran. The articles of their most current confession are silent concerning the obser- vance of the Lord's day.

Next in order should be mentioned the opinions of the

Socinian sect. The Racovian Catechism, the

Socmian Opinion. recognized Confession of this body, in the

1 6th century, states their -erroneous belief with unmistakable

precision and brevity. Under the fourth commandment are the

following questions and answers :

" What is the fourth commandment? " " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." " What dost thou believe concerning this commandment? " " I believe that it is removed under the new covenant, in the way in which other ceremonies, as they are called, are taken away."

" Why, then, was it inserted in the decalogue ? " " Thus that it might be manifest the most absolute part of the Mosaic law was not perfect, and that some indication might exist of this fact, that a law was to succeed the Mosaic law, by far more perfect, the law, namely, of our Lord Jesus Christ."

" Did, or did not, Christ ordain that we should observe the day which they call Lord's day, in place of the Sabbath ? "

" Not at ail ; since the religion of Christ entirely removes the distinction of days, just as it does the other ceremonies, as they are called ; as the Apostle clearly writes in Col. ii : i6. But since we see that the Lord's day has been celebrated from of old time by Christians, we permit the same liberty to all Christians."

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 37 1

A day of religious rest, then, according to Socinians is utterly abolished by Christ, just as the other Levitical ceremo- nies.

As to the ground held by the Anglican Church, concerning the authority of the Lord's day, its stand- ca^cCrch.''^ "^"^^^ ards are indecisive. It holds the same opin- ion with the Augsburg Confession, concerning the power of the Church to ordain rites, ceremonies, and holy- days, additional, but not contrary to the Scriptures ; but it has not observed the scriptural modesty of the Lutherans, in enforc- ing the uniform observance of these human appointments. While its theory on this point is not greatly more exaggerated in words than that of the Augsburg Confession, its practice has been unspeakably more tyrannical. The twentieth of the "Thirty-nine Articles," (" Of the authority of the Church,")- says : " The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, &c." The thirty-fourth says : " Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that other may fear to do the like,) as he that offended against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." The articles contain no nearer reference to the Lord's day. "Our purpose in quoting these words will be seen in connection with the following from the thirteenth of the ecclesiastical canons and constitutions :

All manner of persons within the Church of England, " Due celebration of shall from henceforth celebrate and keep the Sundays and holy- Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, and ^^^' other holy days, according to God's holy

will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England pre- scribed in that behalf," &c.

The Church of England, then, is not, by her standards, definitely committed to that loose theory which we have unfolded ; but the association of Sundays and holy-days, as equal in their claims, and the nature of their authority, is sig- nificant. The Church, according to these articles, has power to ordain days, additional to those appointed in Scripture, pro- vided they are not condemned in Scripture ; and to enforce their observance by censures. And it is plainly implied that the obligation to keep a Sunday is only of the same character with the obligation to keep an Epiphany or Good Friday. Both are alike according to God's holy will ; but it is God's will, not pronounced in Scripture, but through the authoritative decree of the Church. It was the primitive Church which

372 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

introduced the festivals of Epiphany and others ; and it was the same authority which introduced Sunday. As the thirty- tourth article claims that the same church authority which made, can unmake or alter these appointments, it would seem that even the Lord's day might be liable to change by human authority. We proceed now to state the opinions of Calvin, and some „ . . r r- 1 • of the Reformed Churches. By consulting

Opinion of Calvm, ^,.,t • /n ^ r,\ • -hi

Calvm s Institutes, ( B. 2, chap, o), it will be seen that his views of Sabbath-observance are substantially those of Luther. He states that, among the Israelites, there were three grounds for the observance of the seventh day : first, that it might be a type of that cessation of the works of self-righteousness which true believers practice ; second, that there might be a stated day for public worship ; and third, that domestic animals and servants might enjoy a merciful rest from bodily labor. Only the last two of these grounds exist, accord- ing to Calvin, under the New Testament. Hence he says (ch. 8> § 33) • " We celebrate it not with scrupulous rigor, as a ceremony which we conceive to be a figure of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a remedy necessary to the preserva- tion of order in the Church." In the previous section he says : " Though the Sabbath is abrogated, yet it is still customary among us to assemble on stated days, for hearing the Word, for breaking the mystic bread, and for public prayers ; and also to allow servants and laborers a remission from their labor." And in section 34 : " Thus vanish all the dreams of false proph- ets, who in past ages have infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the ceremonial part of this commandment, which, according to them, is the appointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated ; but that the moral part of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains. But this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they retain the same opinion of the holiness of a day ; for, on this principle, the same mysterious signification would be attributed to particular days, which formerlly obtained among the Jews," And in the same tenour, he remarks upon Col. ii ; 16 : (" Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days " " Such a distinction (of days) suited the Jews, to observe sacredly the appointed days, by separating them from other days. Among Christians, such a distinction hath ceased. But, somebody will say that we still retain some observance of days. I answer, that we by no means observe them, as if there were any religion in holy-days, or as if it were not right to labor then ; but the regard is paid to polity and good order, not to the days."

To those who are aware of the close relationship between Anninian Opinion. Socinianism and Arminianism, it will not be

surprising that the latter sect, at its birth.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 373

adopted an idea of the Lord's day only less relaxed than that of the former. It is unnecessary to multiply citations ; a single passage from Limborch, one of the distinguished heads of their seminary in Amsterdam, in his commentary on Romans xiv : 5, will be both sufficiently distinct and authoritative :

Romans xiv : 5. " Another esteemeth every day alike," viz : (explains Limborch) " The converts to Christ from among the Gentiles, on whom the burden of the ritual law was never imposed, did not recognize this distinction of days, but esteemed all days equal, and one no more noble than another. It is true, indeed, that the apostles and primitive Church were already accustomed to assemble in sacred meetings the first day of the week ; but not because they believed that day more eminent than any other, nor because they believed the rest of that day to be a part of Divine worship, as the rest of the seventh day had been under the law ; nor that it must be observed with rigor, as formerly, under the law. By no means : but because it was convenient to designate some time for sacred exercises : and that a man might the better be at leisure for them, rest also from daily labor was required. The first day of the week, on which the Lord rose from the dead, (which is thus called the Lord's day. Rev. i : 10), seemed most meet to be destined to these services ; but not because it was judged more holy, or because a rigid rest and cessation of all work in observing that day was a part of Divine worship. For thus, it would have been not a taking off of the yoke, but a shifting of it."

On the whole, it may be said that the Protestant Churches

„ ,. ^ 1 TT of continental Europe have all occupied this

Continental Usage. . ^ , . ^ . ^ ^ ,

ground, concernmg the sanctihcation 01 the

l^ord's day. These Churches, properly speaking, have never had the Sabbath ; for it has only been to them a holy-day, ranking no higher than Christmas or Easter, or a season set apart by civil enactment, or a convenient arrangement for con- cert in public worship; and not a sacred day of Divine appoint- ment. The manner in which it is desecrated, commonly, through- out the Protestant States of the continent is shocking to the feel- ings and usages of strict, American Protestants ; and seems to them to approximate only too much to the license of Popery. But we have now seen that this desecration is not an accidental irregularity : it is the natural and proper result of the theory in which these Churches have been educated since the Reforma- tion. That the greatest and best of the Reformers should have failed to embrace the truth concerning the Lord's day, is indeed no subject of surprise. That men emerging at a bound from the meridian darkness of Popery into Gospel light should see all things correctly at first, was not to be expected. That they saw so many things " eye to eye," and erred in so few, is a wonder, only to be explained by the presence of the Spirit of

374 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

all truth. It is wholesome to become acquainted with their kw errors, and to explode them ; for it will' tend to correct that overweening spirit of party which ever prompts Christians to call themselves by the name of men, like those who said ; " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." But it may well be inquired also, whether a part of the spiritual decline which has almost extinguished the true light in the ancient seats of Luther, Calvin, Witsius and De Moor, is not due to this misconception of Sabbath obligation, and its consequent neglect. The sacred observance of one day in seven is God's appointed means for the cultivation of piety : when piety van- ishes, orthodoxy necessarily follows it in due time.

As has been already indicated, the first successful attempt , to establish the theory of a Christian Sab-

bath, since the Reformation, was made among the English Puritans. About the year 1595, a dissenting minis- ter of Suffolk, Dr. Nicholas Bound, published a book entitled " Sabbatian Veteris et Novi Testamenti, or The True Doctrine of the Sabbath," in which he advocated the view afterwards adopted by the Westminister Assembly. This treatise had great currency among the devout dissenters and evangelical churchmen, and was the beginning of a discussion which con- tinued, under repeated attempts for its suppression by high church authorities, until the doctrines of the Puritans became those of the bulk of sincere Christians throughout Great Brit- ain and the American colonies. Archbishop Whitgift con- demned Dr. Bound's book to suppression. James I., published his Declaration of Sports, encouraging the people to dancing, trials of archery, erecting May-poles, and other amusements, at any hours of the Lord's day not occupied by public worship. The flood of iqimoralities introduced by this measure became so odious, that the secular magistrates, at the urgent instance of the people themselves, suppressed the Sunday sports. Under Charles L, Laud invoked the aid of his clergy to re- establish them ; and the strange spectacle was seen of the laity petitioning against the profane desecration of the sacred day, and their spiritual guides compelling them to perpetrate it ! (Neal, Hist, of the Puritans, vol. i, ch. viii ; vol.2, ch. 2-5.

The first great Synod which ever propounded, in modern ages, the true doctrine of the Lord's day, bly. ^^ '"'"^ ^' ^^^'"' was the Westminster Assembly. Their Con- fession of Faith, which is now the standard of the Scotch, Irish and American Presbyterian, and of many independent Churches, states the truth so luminously, (ch. xxi : § 7-8), that we shall repeat their words here, though familiar, as the best statement of the proposition and text of our subse- quent discussion.

" Sec. 7. As it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God ; so-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 375

in His word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him ; which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week ; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath."

" Sec. 8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations ; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy."

As the doctrinal articles of the Westminster Assembly were generally adopted by the Calvinistic dissenters of England and America, they also embraced these views of the Sabbath. The reader will now easily comprehend, from this historical re- view, what would naturally be the views of these several denomi- nations concerning Sabbath-observance, and what is the legiti- mate source of that diversity, vagueness and license, which are exhibited in this country, in our Sabbath usages. To partic- ularize further would be unnecessary, and might be supposed invidious.

We proceed now to the attempt to give a full but summary

^ , , , ^ statement of the grounds upon which Pres- 2. Sabbath Com- 1 . • , ,1 1 . ■ r /^i • ^•

mand moral. bytenans assert the doctrme 01 a Christian

Sabbath as it is set forth in their Confession. And first : it is most obvious, that if the Sabbath-law contained in the decalogue is " a positive, moral and perpetual command- ment, binding all men, in all ages," and not ceremonial and pos- itive, like the Jewish laws of meats, new moons and sacrifices, it cannot have passed awa^ along with the other temporary shadows of Judaism. If it was not introduced by the Leviti- cal economy for the first time, but was in force before, and if it was binding not on Jews only, but on all men, then the abro- gation of that economy cannot have abrogated that which it did not institute. The Apostle Paul justifies us here, by using an argument exactly parallel in a similar case. " The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul." Gal. iii : 17. Upon the question whether the fourth commandment was of Mosaic origin, or earlier, the fathers were divided : and this fact is another among the many proofs of their slender acquaint- ance with the Hebrew literature and antiquities.

That it is a positive, moral, and perpetual command, we argue from the facts that there is a reason in the nature of things, making such an institution necessary to man's religious

3/6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

interests ; and that this necessity is substantially the same in all ages and nations. That it is man's duty to worship God, none will dispute. Nor will it be denied that this worship should be in part social ; because man is a being of social affec- tions, and subject to social obligations; and because one of the great ends of worship is the display of the Divine glory before our fellow-creatures. Social worship cannot be conducted W'ithout the appointment of a stated day ; and what more reas- onable than that the Divine authority, who is the object of this worship, should meet this necessity, by Himself fixing the day for all mankind ? And even for the cultivation of our indi- vidual devotion, a periodical season is absolutely necessary to creatures of habit and of finite capacities, like us. What is not regularly done will soon be omitted ; for periodical recur- rence is the very foundation of habit. Unless these spiritual thoughts and exercises were attached to some certain season, they would inevitably be pushed out of the minds of carnal and sensuous beings like man, by the cares of this world. Now, when it is our duty to perform a certain work, it is also our duty to employ all the necessary means for it. The question, whether the Sabbath command is moral or positive, seems, therefore, to admit of a very simple solution. Whether one day in six, or one in eight, might not have seemed to the Divine wisdom admissible for this purpose ; or which day of the seven, the first or last, should be consecrated to it, or what should be the particular external ceremonies for its observance ; all these things, we freely admit, are of merely positive institu- tion, and may be changed by the Divine Legislator. But that man shall observe some stated, recurring period of religious worship, is as much a dictate of the natural reason and con- science, as immediate a result of the natural relations of man to God, as that man shall worship his God at all. And no rea- son can be shown why this original moral obligation was more or less stringent upon the Israelites of the Mosaic period, than on men before or since them. If the ground of the Sabbath institution, in the moral relations existing by nature, is universal and perpetual, is it not reasonable to expect the precept to be so also ?

We argue further, that the enactment of the Sabbath-law does not date from Moses, but was coeval Prfmeval* ^"""^"""^ ^i^h the human race. It is one of the two first institutions of paradise. The sanctifica- tion of the seventh day took place from the very end of the week of creation. (Gen. ii : 3.) For whose observance was the day, then, consecrated or set apart, if not for man's? Not for God's ; because the glorious paradox is forever true of Him, that His ineffable quiet is as perpetual as His ever-active provi- dence. Not surely for the angels', but for Adam's. Doubtless, E:!en witnessed the sacred rest of him and his consort from

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 377

" The toil Of their sweet gardening labor, which sufficed To recommend cool zephyr, and made ease More easy, wholesome thirst and appetite More grateful."

And from that time downward, we have indications, brief indeed, but as numerous as we should expect in the brief record of Genesis and Exodus, and sufficient to show that the Sabbath continued to be an institution of the patriarchal relig- ion. A slight probable evidence of this may even be found in the fact, that seven has ever been a sacred and symbolical num- ber, among Patriarchs, Israelites, and Pagans. In Genesis we read of the "seven clean beasts," the " seven well-favoured," and "seven lean kine," the "seven ears of corn, rank and good." Now there is no natural phenomenon to suggest the number: for no noted heavenly body, or natural element, revolves pre- cisely in seven hours, days, weeks, or months. Whence the pecuHar idea everywhere attached to the number, if not from the institution of a week for our first parents? But to proceed to more solid facts: It is at least probable that the "end of days," (Gen. iv : 3), rendered in our version, " process of time," at which Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices, was the end of the week, the seventh, or Sabbath-day. In Gen. vii : lo, we find God Himself observing the weekly interval in the prepara- tions for the flood. We find another clear hint of the observ- ance of the weekly division of time by Noah and his family in their floating prison. (Gen. viii : 10-12.) The patriarch twice waited a period of seven days to send out his dove. From Gen. xxix : 27, we learn that it was customary among the patri- archs of Mesopotamia, in the days of Laban, to continue a wedding festival a week ; and the very term of service rendered by Jacob for his two wives, shows the use made of the number seven as the customary duration of a contract for domestic ser- vitude. Gen. 1 : 10, shows us that at the time of Jacob's death, a week was also the length of the most honourable funeral exercises. In Exod. xii : 3-20, we find the first institution of the passover, when as yet there were no Mosaic institutions. This feast was also appointed to last a week. In Exodus xvi : 22-30, where we read the first account of the manna, we find the Sabbath institution already in force ; and no candid mind will say that this is the history of its first enactment. It is spoken of as a rest with which tlie people ought to have been familiar. But the people had not yet come to Sinai, and none of its institutions had been given. Here, then, we have the Sabbath's rest enforced on Israel, before the ceremonial law was set up, and two weekly variations wrought in the standing miracle of the manna, in ordfer to facilitate it. And when at length we come to the formal command of the decalogue, it is -expressed in terms which clearly indicate that the Sabbath was

3/8 SYLLAbUS AND NOTES

an institution already known, of which the obligation was now only re-affirmed.

The very fact that this precept found a place in the awful " ten words," is of itself strong evidence that a4ue.^™''''^^^^'" it is not a positive and ceremonial, but a moral and perpetual statute. Confessedly, there is nothing else ceremonial here. An eminent distinction was given as we saw, Lect. 30th, to the subjects of these ten commands, by the mode in which God delivered them. How can it be believed that this one ceremonial precept has been thrust in here, where all else is of obligation as old, and as uni- versal as the race ? This is strengthened also by the reflection that the ground first assigned in Genesis, and here repeated for its enactment, is in no sense Jewish or national. God's work of creation in six days, and His rest on the seventh, have just as much relation to one tribe of Adam's descendants as to another. Note the contrast : that, in many cases, when cere- monial and Jewish commands are given, like the passover, a national or Jewish event is assigned as its ground, like the exodus from Egypt.

The assertion that the Sabbath was coeval with the human race, and was intended for the observation of rion''"^'^ '' ^ ^''''''" all, receives collateral confirmation also from the early traditions concerning it, which per- vade the first Pagan literature. It can hardly be supposed that Homer and Hesiod borrowed from the books of Moses, sab- batical allusions which would have been to their hearers unin- telligible. They must be the remnants of those primeval tra- ditions of patriarchal religion, which had been transferred by the descendants of Japheth, to the isles of Chittim. The early allusions to a sacred seventh day may be sufficiently exhibited by citing a collection of them from Eusebius' Preparatio Evan- gclica (L. xiii, § 13), which he quotes from the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. The latter father is represented as saying : " That the seventh day is sacred, not the Hebrews only, but the Gentiles also acknowledge, according to which the whole universe of animals and vegetables revolves." Hes- iod, for instance, thus says concerning it :

" The first, the fourth also, and the seventh is a sacred day." ('/cotiv ' lIuMi).) Dierum, line 6.

And again : "The seventh day once more, the splendid dawn of the sun."

And Homer: "The seventh day then arrived, the sacred day."

Again : " The seventh was sacred."

"The seventh dawn was at, hand, and with this all the series is completed."

And once more : " On the seventh day, we left the stream of Acheron,"

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 379

And thus also writes Callimachus the poet : " It was now the Sabbath day: and with this all was accomplished."

Again : " The seventh day is among the fortunate ; yea, the seventh is the parent-day."

Again : " The seventh day is first, and the seventh day is the complement."

And : " All things in the starry sky are found in sevens ; and shine in their ordained cycles."

" And this day, the elegies of Solon also proclaim as more sacred, in a wonderful mode."

Thus far Clement and Eusebius. Josephus, in his last book against Apion, affirms that " there could be found no city, either of the Grecians or Barbarians, who owned not a seventh day's rest from labour." This of course is exaggerated. Philo, cotemporary with Josephus, calls the Sabbath kofnrj tAvoYjIiuz.

We argue once more, that the Sabbath never was a Leviti- cal institution, because God commanded its Because enforced on observance both by Jews and Gentiles, in '^ the very laws of Moses. " In it thou shalt

not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man^ servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." To see the force of the argument from this fact, the reader must contrast the jealous care with which " the stranger," the pagan foreigner residing in an Israelitish commu- nity, was prohibited from all share in their ritual services. No foreigner could partake of the passover — it was sacrilege. He was even forbidden to enter the court of the temple where the sacrifices were offered, at the peril of his life. Now, when the foreigner is commanded to share the Sabbath-rest, along with the Israelite, does not this prove that rest to be no ceremonial, no type, like the passover and the altar, but a universal moral institution, designed for Jew and Gentile alike ?

We have thus established this assertion on an impregnable basis, because the argument from it is direct Conclusion. ^^^ conclusive. If the Sabbath command

was in full force before Moses, the passing away of Moses' law does not remove it. If it always was binding, on grounds as general as the human race, on all tribes of mankind, the disso- lution of God's special covenant with the family of Jacob did not repeal it. If its nature is moral and practical, the substitu- tion of the substance for the types does not supplant it. The reason that the cermonial laws were temporary was that the necessity for them was temporary. They were abrogated be- cause they were no longer needed. But the practical need for a Sabbath is the same in all ages. When it is made to appear that this day is the bulwark of practical religion in the world, that its proper observance everywhere goes hand in hand with piety and the true worship of God ; that where there is no Sab- bath there is no Christianity, it becomes an impossible supposi-

380 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

tion that God would make the institution temporary. The necessity for the Sabbath has not • ceased, therefore it is not abrogated. In its nature, as well as its necessity, it is a per- manent, moral command. All such laws are as incapable of change as the God in whose character- they are founded. Un- like mere positive or ceremonial ordinances, the authority of which ceases as soon as God sees fit to repeal the command for them, moral precepts can never be repealed ; because the pur- pose to repeal them would imply a change in the unchangeable, and a depravation in the perfect character of God.

We will now proceed, in the second place, to consider

^ , the passages of the New Testament from

JNew Testament does 1 • i .1 u j.- r ^.i o t^l ^i i i-

not Abrogate. which the abrogation 01 the babbath obliga-

tions has been argued, together with some considerations growing out of them. In atempting to refute the exposition and arguments of those who advocate the repeal of those obligations, we shall not pause to attribute each gloss which we reject to its special author, or load our page with cita- tations of learned names. It may be remarked once for all in the outset, that the erroneous expositions of Calvin are far the least objectionable, and at the same time, the most subtle and acute ; and that those of Neander are in full contrast with his in both these respects.

The first passage is that contained, with some variation, in

Matt, xii : 1-8; Mark ii : 23-28; Luke vi : Matt, xn : 1-8 ; Mark . ^ ^u j • • Ji 1

ii: 23-28- Luke vi- 1-? ^~S- ^'^^ reader, on examining these places in connection, and supplying from the second or third evangelist what is omitted by the first, will find that our Lord advances five ideas distinguishable from each other. His hungry and wearied disciples, passing with Him through the fields of ripe corn, had availed themselves of the permission of Deut. xxiii : 25, to pluck, rub out, and eat some grains of wheat, as a slight refreshment. The Pharisees seize the occasion to cavil that He had thus permitted them to break the Sabbath- law, by engaging in the preparation of their food in sacred time ; objecting thus against the trivial task of rubbing out, and winnowing from the chaff a few heads of wheat as they walked along. Our Saviour defends them and himself by saying, in the first place, that the necessity created by their hunger justi- fied the departure from the letter of the law, as did David's necessity, when, fleeing for his life, he employed the shew-bread (and innocently) to relieve his hunger ; second, that the example of the priests, who performed necessary manual labour without blame about the temple on the Sabbath, justified what His dis- ciples had done ; third, that God preferred the compliance with the spirit of His law, which enjoins humanity and mercy, over a mere compliance with its outward rites ; for, in the fourth place God's design in instituting the Sabbath had been purely a humane one, seeing He had intended it, not as a burdensome

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 381

ceremonial to gall the necks of men to no benevolent purpose,, but as a means of promoting the true welfare of the human race ; and last, that He Himself, as the Messiah, was the Divine and Supreme authority in maintaining the Sabbath law, as well as all others — so that it was enough for Him to pronounce that His disciples had made no infraction of it.

The first general view presented hereupon by the anti- Sabbatarians is, that Christ here, for the first fin^s^J^Ss^bbath'" time, introduces the freer, more lenient law of the new dispensation, by His Messianic authority, as a substitute for the stricter Mosaic law. The simple and short answer is, that it is the Sabbath as it ought to be observed by Jews, under the Mosaic laws, which our Saviour- is here expounding. The new dispensation had not yet come ;. and was not to begin till Pentecost. After all this discussion,. Christ complied with all the requisitions of the Levitical insti- tutions up to His death. If then, any thing is relaxed, it is the Mosaic Sabbath, as Jews should keep it, which is the subject of the alteration. But we wish the reader to bear in mind, as a point important here and hereafter, that our Saviour does not claim any relaxation at all for His disciples. The whole drift of' •His argument is to show that when the Mosaic law of the Sab- bath is properly understood, (as Jews should practice it,) His disciples have not broken it at all. They have complied with it ; and need no lowering of its sense in order to escape its con- demnation. Bearing this in mind, we proceed to the second erroneous inference. This is, that our Saviour illustrates and expounds the Sabbath law, by two cases of other laws merely ceremonial, the disposition of the old shew-bread and the Sab- bath sacrifices. Hence, the inference, that the Sabbath also is but a ceremonial law. But to those who will notice how entirely the Jewish Scriptures neglect, in their practical recitals and dis- cussions of religious duties, the distinction which we make between the " moral" and the "positive," this inference will be seen to be utterly worthless. The Jewish mind never paused to express the distinction, in its practical views of duty. See how Moses mixes, in Exodus, prohibitions against idolatry, or hew- ing the stones of which the altar was made : against eating flesh torn of beasts in the field, and bearing false witness. See how Ezek. (ch. xviii,) conjoins eating upon the mountains and taking usury on a loan, with idolatry and oppression, in his de- scription of the sins of his cotemporaries. But again : It has been admitted that the external and formal details of Sabbath observance may be of only positive obligation, while the obli- gation to keep religiously a stated season is moral. It does not, then, at all imply that the substantial observance of such a stated day is not of moral and perpetual obligation, because any of those details concerning the labours of necessity or mercy which are wholly compatible with such observ^ance, are

382 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

illustrated by comparison with other ceremonial precepts. It is argued again, that " our Saviour, in His third point, implies that Sabbath observance is but ceremonial, while the duty of mercy is of moral obligation, when He indicates that if the two clash, the Sabbath observance is to give way. " The positive gives way to the moral." The force of this is entirely removed by recalling the fact that it is not a failure of Sabbath observ- ance, which He excuses by the argument that the positive should give place to the moral ; but it is an incidental labour of necessity wholly compatible with Sabbath observance. There had been no failure. Nor is it true that when we are com- manded to let one given duty give place to the higher demands of another, the former is, therefore, only positive, while the latter is moral. There is a natural, moral, and perpetual obli- gation to worship God ; and yet it might be our duty to sus- pend any acts of worship, to almost any number, in order to meet the demands of urgent cases of necessity calling for our compassion. The wise man expresses precisely the sense of our Saviour's argument, when he says: "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." (Prov. xxi : 3.) And the meaning is, that the formal acts of religious worship, though in general demanded by nature and reason, are less important in God's eyes than the direct acts which express the true spirit of holiness in which religion consists. " Sacri- fice," both here, and in our Saviour's citation from Samuel, represents the whole general idea of outward religious worship. It is not because " sacrifice" is merely ceremonial, that it is postponed in importance, to mercy and justice, but because it is external, and may be merely formal. Religious worship, here intended by the more special term " sacrifice," is surely not a duty merely ceremonial and positive in -its obligations, though external. Our Saviour, then, does not imply that the Sabbath is an institution merely ceremonial, by comparing it to sacrifice.

The perverted gloss of the fourth idea : " The Sabbath is made for man," is almost too shallow to need exposure. It has been used as though it sanctioned the notion, that man was not intended to be cramped by the Sabbath, but, on the contrary, it was intended to yield to his convenience and gratification. But since the object of the Sabbath is here stated to be a humane one, namely, the promotion of man's true welfare, it must be settled what that true welfare is, and how it may be best promoted, before we are authorized to conclude that we may do what we please with the holy-day. If it should appear that man's true welfare imperatively demands a Sabbath-day, strictly observed and fenced in with Divine authority, the humanity of the Divine motive in giving a Sabbath would argue any thing else than the license inferred from it.

The concluding words of the passage, in Matthew, have

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 383

. suggested an argument which is at least

Christ does not Remit. 1 -ui /^ 1 • i ^1

more plausible. Lalvm paraphrases them thus : " The Son of man, agreeably to His authority, is able to relax the Sabbath-day just as the other legal ceremonies." And just before : " Here He saith that power is given to Him to re- lease His people from the necessity of observing the Sabbath." The inference is obvious, that if this is His scope in these words, then the Sabbath must be admitted by us to be only a ceremonial institution ; for we have ourselves argued that moral laws are founded on the unchangeable nature of God Himself, and will n^ver be changed, because God cannot change. But this is clearly a mistaken exposition. It may be noted that the conjunction which is rendered by Calvin and the English ver- sion, " the Son of man is Lord even (or also) of the Sabbath- day," is unanimously rejected by modern editors of the text. Calvin, of course, makes this conjunction regard the ceremonials just mentioned : " The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath also," (as well as of matters of shew-bread and sacrifice). But we should almost certainly read the clause without the conjunction : " If ye had known what this means, ' I prefer mercy rather than sacrifice,' ye would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." What force shall we assign to the illative " for," wholly neglected by Calvin ? There is no reasonable explanation of it, but that which makes it introduce the ground on which the innocence of the disciples is asserted. " These men, blamed by you, are innocent ; it is enough that I defend them : for I am Lord of the Sabbath. This law is my law. Mine is the authority which enacts it, and if I am satisfied, that itself is innocence in my subjects." But this is comparatively unimportant. The evident reason which shows Calvin's paraphrase to be entirely a misconception, is this : As we have said, the whole drift of our Saviour's argu- ment is not to excuse His disciples, but to defend them. He does not claim that the Sabbath law, as enacted for Jews, must needs be relaxed, in order to admit the conduct of the dis- ciples ; but that this law justified their conduct. He concludes His defence by telling their accusers, "you have condemned the innocent." Now, to represent Him as shielding them by assert- ing a right in Himself to relax the Sabbath law for them, makes Him adopt in the end a ground of defence contradictory to the former. The last argument would stultify all the previous ones. And, as a question of fact, is it true, that Christ did, at this time, exercise His divine authority to relax any Mosaic institu- tion in favour of His disciples ? Is it not notorious, on the contrary, that He taught them to give an exemplar}^ compliance in every respect, until the time was fully come after His resur- rection ?

But to conclude. It is most obvious that, whatever is our exposition of the particular parts, our Saviour's drift is to unfold

384 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the true nature of the Mosaic Sabbath, as then obHgatory on. Jews still obedient to the ceremonial law, as He admitted Him- self and His disciples to be ; and not the nature of the Christian Sabbath. The latter was not to be introduced until many- months after, as our opponents themselves admit. And this short view is a sufficient refutation in itself

It may be as well to notice here a supposed difficulty attending our argument. It is said : " If you stiu'Re^dred^'"'''"^'' ^^ny that Christ promises any relaxation of the stringency of the Levitical Sabbath, as of a ceremonial yoke, then you ought in consistency to exact of Christians now as punctilious an observance as was demanded of the old Jews, in every respect. You should refuse to make a fire in your dwellings on the Sabbath. You should seek to re- enact the terrible law of Numb, xv : 35, which punished a wretch with death for gathering a few sticks."

This is only skillful sophistry. We have not asserted that all the details of the Sabbath laws, in the books of Moses, were of perpetual moral obligation. We have not denied that some of them were ceremonial. The two instances mentioned, which are the only plausible ones which can be presented against us, are not taken from the decalogue, but from subsequent parts of the ceremonial books. We expressly contrasted the Sabbath precept as it stands in the " ten words" with all the rest, with reference to its perpetual, moral nature. The precept there contains only two points — rest from secular labour, and the sanctification of the day, which means in our view its appropri- ation to sacred services. The matter which is of perpetual moral obligation in the Sabbath law, is only this, that a finite, sensuous, and social being like man, shall have some periodical season statedly consecrated to religious services, (such season as God shall see fit to appoint). And all matters of detail and form which do not clash with this great end, are matters of mere positive enactment, which may be changed or repealed by Him who enacted them. But we can present several very con- sistent and sufficient reasons why the ceremonial details, added to the great moral law of the decalogue by the subsequent and ritual part of the Levitical legislation, should be more stringent, and enforced by heavier penalties, than among us. First : the Sabbath became to the Israelite not only a religious institution of moral obligation, but a type. It took rank with his new- moon, and his passover. Of this, more hereafter. But the very nature and design of a symbolical ritual demand that it shall be observed with technical accuracy. Next, the government was a theocracy, and no line whatever separated the secular and sacred statutes from each other. Hence, it is natural that offences should deserve very different penalties under such a government, and especially an offence aimed so especially against the Divine Chief Magistrate, as Sabbath labour. Third:

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 385

The Hebrews' houses had no hearths, nor chimneys, except for cooking ; so that in that warm chmate a prohibition to hght fire on the Sabbath is exactly equivalent to a prohibition to cook food on the holy-day. Even if this prohibition were a part of the deca- logue, it would be a ridiculous sacrifice of its spirit to its letter, to compel us, in our wintry climate, to forego the fire which is hourly necessary to health and comfort. But as the prohibition signifies in its spirit, we freely admit that with us, as with the Jews, all culinary labours should be intermitted, except such as are demanded by necessity and mercy, or by the different nature of a part of the food on which civilized nations now subsist. For us to allow ourselves further license would be to palter with that which we have so carefully pointed out as the essential and perpetual substance of the Sabbath law — the cessation of labour, and the appropriation to religious pursuits of one day (not one fragment of a day) in seven. When the Confession of Faith says that we are commanded to rest "all the day" from our own employments and amusements, and to " take up the whole time" in religious exercises, it only assumes that " a day" means, in the decalogue, a day.

The second group of passages which are used against our theory of Sabbath obligation are, Rom. xiv ; 5-6 ; Gal. iv : 9-1 1 ; Col. ii : 16, 17. To save the reader trouble, we will copy them.

"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man

ivfj^ij^'coit-ie^ry. ^^ ^^^^>' persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

" But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

" Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new-moon, or of the Sab- bath-days : Which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ."

The facts in which all are agreed, which explain the Apostle's meaning in these passages, are these : After the estab- lishment of the new dispensation, the Christians converted from among the Jews had generally combined the practice of Judaism with the forms of Christianity. They observed the Lord's day, baptism, and the Lord's supper ; but they also continued to keep the seventh day, the passover, and circumcision. At first it was proposed by them to enforce this double system on aU 25*

386 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Gentile Christians ; but this project was rebuked by the meeting of apostles and elders at Jerusalem, recorded in Acts xv. A large part, however, of the Jewish Christians, out of whom ulti- mately grew the Ebionite sect, continued to observe the forms of both dispensations ; and restless spirits among the mixed churches of Jewish and Gentile converts planted by Paul, con- tinued to attempt their enforcement on Gentiles also ; some of them conjoining with this Ebionite theory the graver heresy of a justification by ritual observances. Thus, at this day, this spectacle was exhibited. In the mixed churches of Asia Minor and the West, some brethren went to the synagogue on Satur- day, and to the church-meeting on Sunday, keeping both days religiously ; while some kept only Sunday. Some felt bound to keep all the Jewish festivals and fasts, while others paid them no regard. And those who had not Christian light to apprehend these Jewish observances as non-essentials, found their con- sciences grievously burdened or offended by the diversity. It was to quiet this trouble that the apostle wrote these passages. Thus far we agree.

We, however, further assert, that by the beggarly elements of "days," "months," "times," "years," "holy-days," " new- moons," " Sabbath-days," the apostle means Jewish festivals, and those alone. The Christian's festival, Sunday, is not here in question ; because about the observance of this there was no dispute nor diversity in the Christian churches. Jewish and Gentile Christians alike consented universally in :ts sanctifica- tion. When Paul asserts that the regarding of a day, or the not regarding it, is a non-essential, like the eating or not eating of meats, the natural and fair interpretation is, that he means those days which were in debate, and no others. When he implies that some innocently "regarded every day alike," we should understand, every one of those days which were subjects of diversity — not the Christians' Sunday, about which there was no dispute.

But the other party give to Paul's words a far more sweep- ing sense. They suppose him to assert ' that Vifw-Repl'y! ''''''''' the new dispensation has detached the seivice of God from all connections with stated sea- sons whatever ; so that in its view, all days. Sabbath or Sun- day, Passover or Easter, should be alike to the Christian spirit. He who ceased to observe the Jewish days, in order to transfer his sabbatical observances, his stated devotions and special religious rest to the Christian days, was still in substance a Judaizer. He was retaining the Jewish bondage of spirit under a new form. The true liberty which Paul would teach was this : To regard no day whatever as more related to the Christian consciousness than any other day, and to make every <lay a rest from sin, pervading all with a sacred spirit by per- i itning all its labours to the glory of God. This is the true^

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 387

thorough, and high ground, which the apostle called them to occupy with him. But opposition to Judaism, and reverence for Christ in His resurrection had led the Christians to hold their public meetings on Sunday instead of Saturday ; and some little allowance of set days (including Easter and Whit- suntide) had been granted to the weakness of the Christian life, which, in the common average of Christians, had not yet risen to that level which would enable them, like Paul, to make every day equally a Lords' day. This concession had been pos- sibly established with Paul's connivance, certainly very early in the history of the Church ; and, on the whole, was a very con- venient and useful human appointment.' See this view in Neander, Hist., vol. i, § 3, vol. 2, § 3 ; and Planting and Training vol. i : bk, 3, ch. v, § 2. The chief argument by which he sup- ports his view is a perversion of the figurative and glowing language found in the few and not very perspicuous writings of the Christians immediately next to the apostles, where they speak affectionately of the Christian's whole life as belonging to God by the purchase of redemption, and of the duties of every day as an oblation to His honour. The thankful spirit of the new dispensation, urges Neander, unlike the Jewish, felt itself constrained by gratitude for redemption to consecrate its whole life to God. Whatever the Christian's occupation, whether secular or religious, all was alike done to the glory of God. Hence, all was consecrated; every day was a holy day, for the whole life was holy; every Christian was a perpetual priest. Hence, there was no room for the idea of a Sabbath at all. Strange that the learned and amiable antiquary should have forgotten, that all this was just as true of pious Hebrews before, as of Christians after Christ — of Isaiah as of Paul. Isaiah, if redeemed at all, was redeemed by the same blood with Paul, owed substantially the same debt of gratitude, and would feel, as a true saint, the same self-consecration. The spirit of the precept, " Do all to ' the glory of God," actuates the pious Israelite exactly as it did the pious Christian. Let the reader compare Deut. vi : 4, 5, with Matt, xxii : 37. So, this argument proves that there ought to be no room for a sabbati- cal distinction of days under the old dispensation, just as under the new. Unluckily, the explicit language of the books of Moses is rather damaging to the validity of the inference.

Neander concedes that Paul's ground was too high for many ; and hence an observance of some days, not jure divino, was allowed them. On this I remark, first, that it is a low view of the apostle's inspiration, which makes him set up a standard so impractical, that the teaching needed amendment by a human expedient ; and second, that this admitted fact goes far to prove that a Sabbath is grounded, as a permanent and moral precept, in man's wants and nature. Third, this plea leaves the Lord's day in the attitude of a piece of will-worship.

388 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

In our remaining discussion of the passages cited from the

epistles, we may confine our remarks to Col. Is the Sabbath a--^/'^„-r? •, ,. 11-.1

Type, n : ID, 17. ror it contams all the apparent

difficulties for the Sabbatarian, and all the supposed arguments for his opponent, in the strongest form. The point made by Calvin upon the words, " Sabbath-days, . . . . are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ," is far the most plausible, and indeed the only one of serious difificulty. It is in substance this : That if it be ad- mitted that the Lord's day was never included by the earlier Christians in the term Sabbata — and the apostle is here condemn- ing the Jewish holy-days only — still the fact will remain that the Jewish Sabbath was a shadow. That is, it was a typical, and not a perpetual moral institution, so that it must pass away along with all the other types, after the substance comes, unless some positive New Testament precept re-enact it. But there is no such precept. To this we answer, that the Sabbath was to the Jews both a perpetual, moral institution, and a type. That it was the former, we have proved in the first general branch of our discussion. It was as old as the race of man, was given to all the race, was given upon an assigned motive of universal application, and to satisfy a necessity common to the whole race, was founded on man's natural relations to his Maker, was ob- served before the typical dispensation came among all tribes, was re-enacted in the decalogue where all the precepts are per- petual, and was enjoined on foreigners as well as Jews in the Holy Land : while from all types foreigners were expressly excluded. That it was to the Jews also a type, we admit; Like the new-moons, it was marked by an additional number of sacrifices. It was to the Israelites a memorial of their exo- dus from Egypt, and their covenant of obedience to God. Deut. V : 15, Exod. xxxi : 13; Ezek. xx : 12. It was for a time, at least, a foreshadowing of the rest of Canaan, Heb. iv : 4-1 1. It was to them, as it is to us, a shadow of the rest in heaven, Heb. iv : 9. Ca^lvin adds, (Institutes, Bk. 2, ch. 8, § 29) that its most important typical use was to represent the cessation of the efforts of self-righteousness in us, that we may repose in the justifying and sanctifying grace of Christ. For this his proofs seem to us very slender. When the Epistle to the Colossians says that Sabbaths, along with holy days and new-moons, are a shadow, it seems to us much the most simple explanation to say that it is the sacrificial aspect of those days, or (to employ other words) their use as special days of sacri- fice, in which they together constituted a shadow. They were a shadow in this : that the sacrifices, which constituted so prominent a part of their Levitical observance, pointed to Christ the body. This is exactly accordant with the whole tenor of the Epistles,

The seventh day had been, then, to the Jews, both a moral

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 389

institution and a ritual type. In its latter use, the coming of Christ had of course abrogated it. In its former use, its whole duties and obligations had lately been transferred to the Lord's day. So that the seventh day, as distinguished from Sunday, along with the new-moons, was now nothing but a type, and that an effete one. In this aspect, the apostle might well argue that its observance then indicated a Judaizing tendency.

We fortify our position farther by re-asserting that the fair

exposition of all these passages should lead eluded are Jewih. ^"^ ^s to understand by the phrases, "days,"

"times," "holy-days," only those days or times which were then subjects of diversity among the Chris- tians to whom the apostle was writing. When he implies that some innocently "regarded every day alike," we ought in fair- ness to understand by " every day," each of those days which were then in dispute. But we know historically that there was no diversity among these Christians concerning the observance of the Lord's day. All practised it. If we uncritically persist in taking the phrase " every day " in a sense absolutely uni- versal, we shall place the teachings and usages of the apostle in a self-contradictory light. We make him tell his converts that the Lord's day may be regarded as just like any other day; when we know that, in fact, neither the apostle nor any of his converts regarded it so. They all observed it as a religious fes- tival, and, as we shall show, with the clear sanction of inspired example. Again : it must be distinctly remembered that the word Sabbath was never applied, in New Testament language, to the Lord's day, but was always used for the seventh day, and other Jewish festivals, as distinguised from the Christian Sun- day. We have the authority of Suidas, Theophylact and Caesarius, and Levit. xxiii : 24, that the " Jews called any of their stated religious festivals 2'a/9/3'«ra. We might then argue, perhaps, that there is no evidence that the seventh day is intended in this place of Colossians at all ; but only the Jewish feasts. But we waive this, as too near to special pleading. With far more confidence we argue, that since all parties have claimed the parellelism of three passages in Romans, Galatians and Colossians, as to their occasion and doctrine, we are en- titled to assume that the passage in Colossians, the most explicit of the three, is to be taken as explicative of the other two. And we assert that, according to well known usage of the word la^iiaxa at that time, the Sundays were definitely excluded from the apostle's assertion. When he says here, " holy-days," new-moons, and Sabbath-days," he explicitly ■excludes the Lord's days. We are entitled to assume, there- fore, that they are excluded when he says in the parellel pas- sage of Romans, " every day," and in Galatians, " days, and months, and times, and years." That the Lord's days were sacred was not in debate ; this is set aside as a matter known to

390 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

all, consented unto by all. It is the Jewish holy-days from the observance of which the Christian conscience is exempted.

L t us recur to that view of the necessity of a Sabbatical Without Sabbath, institution in some form. It is not a tempo- the New Dispensation rary or ceremonial need, but one founded on would be the Worse, man's very nature and relations to his God. If there is no stated sacred day, there will be no religion. Now shall we so interpret the apostle's words as to leave the New Testament Church no Sabbath at all in any shape ? After the experience of all ages had shown that a Sabbath rest was the natural and necessary means essential to religious welfare, was the New Testament Church stripped more bare, left more poor than all preceding dispensations ? Paradise had enjoyed its Sabbath, though needing it less. The patriarchal saints enjoyed it. Abraham enjoyed it. Israel, under the burdensome tute- lage of the law, enjoyed it. But now that the last, the fullest, the most gracious and blessed dispensation of all has come, this one of the two institutions of Eden is taken away ! We cannot accept such an exposition of the apostle's meaning.

We shall now, in the third branch of our discussion, attempt to show the ground on which we tian Sabbath! '' ^^"'" ^ssert that the Sabbath, " from the resurrec- tion of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sab- bath." This proof is chiefly historical, and divides itself into two branches ; first, that drawn from the inspired history of the New Testament ; and second, that found in the authentic but uninspired testimony of primitive Christians. The latter, which might have been thought to demand a place in our review of the history of Sabbath opinions has been reserved for this place, because it forms an interesting part of our ground of argu- ment. But let us here say, once for all, that we invoke this patristic testimony, in no popish or prelatic spirit of depend- ence on it. In pur view, all the uninspired church testimony in the world, however venerable, would never make it our duty to keep Sunday as a Sabbath. We use these fathers simply as historical witnesses ; and their evidence derives its whole value in our eyes from its relevancy to this point ; whether or not the apostles left a custom of observing Sunday, instead of the Sab- baths, established by their example in the Churches.

Our first, or preliminary argument for the observance of ^ ^ ^ Sunday as the Sabbath, is that implied in the

Inferred from Abro- .^^^ic"*. r i-- ji

gation of Seventh Day. ^^cond Scripture reference subjoined by our Confession to the sentence we have just quoted from it. If we have been successful in proving that the Sabbath is a perpetual institution, the evidence will appear per- fect. The perpetual law of the decalogue has commanded all men, in all time, to keep a Sabbath-day ; and " till heaven and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 39 1

earth pass, one jot or tittle shall not pass from the law of God till all be fulfilled," The Apostle, in Col. ii : 16, 17, clearly tells us that the seventh day is no longer our Sabbath. What day, then, is it ? Some day must have been substituted ; and what one so likely to be the true substitue as the Lord's day ? The law is not repealed ; it cannot be. But Paul has shown that it is changed. To what day is the Sabbath changed, if not to the first ? No other day in the week has a shadow of a claim. It must be this, or none ; but it cannot be none : therefore it must be this.

The other main argument consists in the fact that disci- ples, inspired apostles, and their Christian ent.'°^^ ^ "^^^^ ' associates, did observe the Lord's day as a religious festival. And this fact must be viewed, to see its full force, in connection with the first argument. When we find them at once beginning, and uniformly continu- ing, the observance of the Lord's day, while they avow that they are no longer bound to observe the seventh day, and when we couple with this the knowledge of the truth that they, like all the rest of the world, were still commanded by God to keep His Sabbath, we see that the inference is overwhelming, that the authority by which they observed the Lord's day was from God, although they did not say so. That which is inferred from Scripture, " by good and necessary consequence," is valid; as well as that which is set down expressly in it," Examina- tion shows us, then, that the disciples commenced the observ- ance of the Lord's day by social worship the very next week after the resurrection. From John xx : 19, we learn that the very day of the resurrection, at evening, the disciples were assembled with closed doors, with the exception of Thomas Didymus. Can we doubt that they had met for worship ? In verse 26 we learn : " And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them : then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, ' Peace be unto you,' " None will doubt but that this was also a meeting for worship, and the phraseology implies that it was their sec- ond meeting. In Jewish language, and estimates of time, the days at which the counts begin and end are always included in the counts ; so that " after eight days," here indisputably means just a full week.

By consulting Leviticus xxiii : 15, 16; Deut. xvi : 9, we find that the day of Pentecost was fixed in FifstDTy.'^ ^""^ °" this way. On the morrow after that Sabbath (seventh day) which was included within the passover week, a sheaf of the earliest ripe corn was cut, brought fresh into the sanctuary, and presented as a thank- offering to God. The day of this ceremonial was always the first day of the week, or our Sunday, which- was, to the Israel- ites, a working day. From this day they were to count seven

392 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

weeks complete, and the fiftieth day was Pentecost day, or the feast of ingathering.

Thus we reach the interesting fact that the day selected by God for the pentecostal outpouring, and the inauguration of the Gospel dispensation, was the Lord's day — a significant and splendid testimony to the importance and honour it was in- tended to have in the Christian world. But we read in Acts i : 14, and ii : I, that this day also was observed by the disciples as a day for social worship. Thus the first day of the week received a second, sacred and august witness, as the weekly solemnity of our religion, not only in its observance by the whole body of the new Church, but by the baptism of fire, and the Holy Ghost — a witness only second to that of Christ's vic- tory over death and hell. Then the first public proclamation of the Gospel under the new dispensation began ; and surely, when every step, every act of the Divine Providence was form- ative and fundamental, it was not without meaning that God selected the first day of the week as the chosen day.

It is most evident from the New Testament history, that the Apostles and early Church uniformly D^y^atTrlli ^"""^'^ celebrated their worship on the first day of the week. The hints are not numerous ; but they are sufficiently distinct. The next clear instance is in Acts XX : 7. The Apostle was now returning from his famous mission to Macedonia and Achaia, in full prospect of captivity at Jerusalem. He stops at the little church at Troas, to spend a season with his converts there : " And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, (ready to depart on the morrow,) and continued his speech until midnight." Here we have a double evidence of our point. First, Paul preached unto the disciples on this day, while we see from the sixth verse, that he was a whole week in Troas, including the Jewish Sabbath. Why does he wait nearly a whole week to give these his more solemn and public instructions, unless there had been some usage ? Again : the words, " when the disciples came together to break bread," clearly indicate that the first day of the week was their habitual day for celebrating the Lord's Supper. So that it is clear, this Church of Troas, planted and trained by Paul, was in the habit of consecrating the first day of the week to public worship ; and the inspired man here concurs in the habit. Neander does, indeed, suggest an evasion, in order to substantiate his assertion that there is no evidence the Lord's day was specially sanctified during the hfe-time of Paul. He says that it is so very probable this day was selected by the brethren, because Paul could not wait any longer, (ready to depart" on the morrow,) that no safe inference can be drawn for a habitual observance of the day by them or Paul ! But verse 6, tells us that Paul had been already waiting a whole week,

2.

OF LECTURE'5 IN THEOLOGY. 393

and might have had choice of all the days of the week for his meeting ! No other word is needed to explode this suggestion. The next clear instance is in i Cor. xvi : i, 2. " Now con- cerning the collection for the saints ; as I I Cor. i6th : i and ^^^^ ^j^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ Churches of Galatia,

even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The points here indicated are two — that the weekly oblation of alms-giving was fixed for the Lord's day — and that this rule was enacted for the Church of Corinth, and all those of Galatia. The inference is overwhelming, that the Apostle made the usage ultimately uniform in all the churches of his training. Neander again attempts to destroy this evidence for the sancti- fication of Sunday, by saying that this does not prove there was any church meeting, or public w^orship on this day. The sum of alms was, most probably, simply laid aside at home, in an individual, private manner ; and this is made more probable by the Apostle's ow^n words : " let every one of you lay by him in store." But suppose this understanding of the passage is granted, against the uniform custom and tradition of the earliest Christians, which testifies with one voice, that the weekly alms- giving took place in the church meeting; Neander's point is not yet gained. Still this alms-giving was, in the New Testa- ment meaning, an act of worship. See Phil, iv : i8. And the early tradition unanimously represents the first Christians as so regarding it. Hence, whether this alms-giving were in public or private, we have here an indisputable instance, that an act of worship was appointed, by apostolic authority, to be statedly performed on the Lord's day, throughout the churches. This is evidence enough that the first day of the week w^as the day already known and selected for those forms of worship which were rather weekly than diurnal.

Only one other remains to be cited : that in Rev. i : lO. John the Apostle introduces the visions of da-^^nVata'^or' ^^ ^''^ Patnios, by saying, " I was in the spirit on ^^^^ ^ °^' the Lord's day." This is the only instance

of the application of this title to the first day of the week in the sacred writings. But all expositors, ancient and modern, say unhesitatingly that Sunday is designated by it. On this point the Church has had but one understanding, from the first century down. Tlje Apostle evidently means to inform us that on Sunday he was engaged in a spiritual frame of mind and feelings. The application of the name, Lord's day, to Sunday, by inspired authority, of itself contains almost enough of sig- nificance to establish its claims to sanctification, without another text or example. What fair sense can it bear, except that it is a day consecrated to the Lord? Compare Isaiah Iviii : 15, when God calls the Sabbath " my holy-day." If the Sabbath

394 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

is God's day, the Lord's day should mean a Christian Sabbath. And the occupation of the Apostle this day, with peculiar spir- itual exercises, gives additional probability to the belief that it was observed by the New Testament Christians as a day of devotion.

We come now to the second branch of the historical argument — the testimony of the early, but uninspired ^Tradition of Lord's Christian writers. The earliest of all cannot be called Christian. In the celebrated letter of inquiry written by Pliny the younger to the Emperor Trajan, on the treatment of persons accused of Christianity, this pagan governor says, that it was the custom of these Christians, " to^ meet, stato die, before light, to sing a hymn to Christ as God^ and bind each other in an oath, (not to some crime but) to re- frain from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break faith, and not to betray trusts." This letter was written a few years after the death of the Apostle John. We cannot doubt that this stated day, discovered by Pliny was the Lord's day. Ignatius, the celebrated martyr-bishop of Antioch, says, in his epistle to the Magnesians, written about A. D. 107 or 116, that this is " the Lord's day, the day, the day consecrated to the resurrec- tion, the queen and chief of all the days."

Justin Martyr, who died about A. D. 160, says that the Christians " neither celebrated the Jewish festivals, nor observed their Sabbaths, nor practised circumcision." (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 34). In another place, he says, that " they, both those who lived in the city and those who lived in the country, were all accustomed to meet on the day which is denominated Sunday, for the reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation and communion. The assembly met on Sunday, because this is the first day on which God, having changed the darkness and the elements, created the world ; and because Jesus our Lord on this day rose from the dead."

The epistle attributed to Barnabas, though not written by this apostolic man, is undoubtedly of early origin. This un- known writer introduces the Lord, as saying : " The Sabbaths which you now keep are not acceptable to me ; but those w hich I have made when resting from all things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is the beginning of the other world." " For which cause, we (Christians) observe the eighth day with glad- ness, in which Jesus rose from the dead," &c. Eph. ch. xv.

Tertullian, at the close of the second century, says : " We celebrate Sunday as a joyful day. On the Lord's day we think it wrong to fast, or to kneel in prayer."

Clement of Alexandria, cotemporary with Tertullian, says : "A true Christian, according to the commands of the Gospel, observes the Lord's day by casting out all bad thoughts, and cherishing all goodness, honouring the resurrection of the Lord, which took place on that day."

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 395:

But, perhaps the most important, because the most learned, and, at the same time, the most expHcit witness, is Eusebius, the celebrated bishop of Gaesarea, who was in his literary prime about the era of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. In his Commen- tary on the xcii Psalm, which the reader will remember, is entitled " a psalm or song for the Sabbath-day," he says : " The Worb, (Christ), by the new covenant, translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the sym- bol of true rest, the saving Lord's day, the first (day) of light, in which the Saviour gained the victory over death, &c. On this day, which is the first of the Light, and the true Sun, we^ assemble after the interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbath ; even all nations redeemed by Him through- out the world assemble, and do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath. All things which it was duty to do on the Sab- bath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has the precedence, and is first in rank, and more honourable than the Jewish Sab- bath. It is delivered to us {-anadidozac) that we should meet together on this day, and it is evidence that we should do these things announced in the psalm."

The first Church council which formally enjoined cessation of labour upon the Lord's day was the provincial synod of Laodicea, held a little after the middle of the fourth century. The twenty-ninth canon of this body commanded that none but necessar)^ secular labours should be carried on upon Sunday. But Constantine the Great, when he adopted the Christian as the religion of the State, had already enacted that all the labours of courts of justice, civil and military functionaries, and handicraft trades, should be suspended on the Lord's day, and that it should be devoted to prayer and public worship. This suspension of labour was not, however, extended to agricultur- ists, because it was supposed they must needs avail themselves of the propitious season to gather their harvests, or sow their seed, without regard to sacred days. But the Emperor Leo (who came to the throne A. D. 457) ultimately extended the law to all classes of persons.

The Christians did not for several hundred years apply the

word Sabbath to the first day of the week, clauire'''^^''" Nomen- ^^^ always used it distinctly to indicate the

Jewish seventh day. Their own sacred day, the first day, was called by them the Lord's day {filiz(>fJ- '/JJinaxfl), as they said, because it was dedicated to the honour of Christ, and because it was the head, crown, and chief of all the days. They also called it Sundav [Dies solis, a phrase frequently found among the Latin Christians), because, according to their interpretation of Gen. i : 3, the sun was created on the first day of the week ; but still more, because on that day the brighter

396 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Sun of Righteousness arose from the dead, with heahng in His beams. The objection often made by persons over-puritanical, that it smacks of Pagan or Scandinavian profanity to say Sun- day, because the word indicates a heathenish consecration of the day to the sun, is therefore more Quakerish than sensible. We are willing to confess that we always loved the good old name Sunday — name worthy of that day which should ever seem the brightest in the Christian's conceptions, of all the week, when the glorious works of the natural creation first began to display the honours of the great Creator, and when that new and more divine creation of redeeming grace was per- fected by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, in the appli- cation of the phrase " Christian Sabbath" to the first day, the Westminster Assembly had a definite and truthful design, although the early Church had not given it this name. It was their intention to express thus that vital head of their theory ; that the Old Testament institute called Sabbath, which was coeval with man, and was destined to coexist with all dispen- sations, was not abrogated ; that it still existed substantially, and that Christians were now to find it in the Lord's day. To the Christian the Lord's day is the Sabbath. (Such is the sig- nificance of the name) possessing the Divine authority, and demanding in the main the sanctification which was formerly attached to the seventh day.

Another head of the Sabbath argument remains : from its

. , ^ practical necessity, as a means of securing

4. Practical Argument. , 11 -111.11-

^ man s corporeal and mental health, his mo-

rality, his temporal success in life, and his religious interests. This is the department of the discussion which has been more particularly unfolded in the " Permanent Sabbath Documents," published under the auspices of Dr. Justin Edwards, and more recently in the remarkable essays on the Sabbath, produced by workingmen in Great Britain. It is now by so much the best understood part of the Sabbath discussion that we should not have introduced it at all except that it was one of the stones in the arch of our attempted demonstration, that there is a natural necessity in man for a Sabbath rest. The Creator, who appoint- ed the Sabbath, formed man's frame ; and all intelligent obser- vers are now agreed that the latter was adapted to the former. Either body or mind can do more work by resting one day in seven, than by labouring all the seven days. And neither mind nor body can enjoy health and continued activity without its appointed rest. Even the structure of the brutes exhibits the same law. Again : As a moral and social institution, a weekly rest is invaluable. It is a quiet domestic reunion for the bust- ling sons of toil. It ensures the necessary vacation in those earthly and turbulent anxieties and affections, which would otherwise become inordinate and morbid. It brings around a season of periodical neatness and decency, when the soil of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 39/

weekly labour is laid aside, and men meet each other amidst the decencies of the sanctuary, and renew their social affec- tions. But above all, a Sabbath is necessary for man's moral and rlligious interests. Even in Paradise, and in man's state of innocence, it was true that a stated season, resolutely appropri- ated to religious exercises, was necessary to his welfare as a, religious being. A creature subject to the law of habit, of finite faculties, and required by the conditions of his existence to distribute his attention and labours between things secular and things sacred, cannot successfully accomplish this destiny- without a regular distribution of his time between the two great departments. This is literally a physical necessity. And when we add the consideration that man is now a being of depraved, earthly affections, prone to avert his eyes from heaven to the earth, the necessity is still more obvious. Man does nothing regularly for which he has not a regular time. The absolute necessity of the Sabbath, as a season for the public preaching- of religion and morality, as a leisure time for the domestic reli- gious instruction of the young, as a time for private self-exami- nation and devotion, is most clear to all who admit the import- ance of these duties. And now, it is most obvious to practical good sense, that if such a stated season is necessary, then it is proper that it should be ordained and marked off by Divine authority, and not by a sort of convention on man's part. To neglect the stated observance of a religious rest, is to neglect religion. And when there is so much of mundane and carnal affection — so much of craving, eager worldly bustle — to entice us to an infringement of this sacred rest, it is certain that it will be neglected, unless it be defended by the highest sanction of God's own authority. Nay, do we not see that this sanction is insufficient, even among some who admit its validity ? Again : If such a stated rest is necessary, then it is also neces- sary that its metes and bounds be defined by the same authority which enjoins the rest itself. Otherwise, the license which men will allow themselves in interpreting the duration of the season, and in deciding how much constitutes the observance of it, or how little, will effectually abrogate the rest itself If, then, the necessities of human nature require a Sabbath, it does not appear how God could ordain less than we suppose He has done, in requiring the whole of a definite length of time to be faithfully devoted to religious exercises, and in making this command explicit and absolute.

SYLLABUS

1. What is the general scope of the 5th Commandment?

2. Show that, under the names " Father and Mother," all superiors in family, Church and State are included.

3. What is the meaning of the promise attached ?

4. What is required and forbidden in the 6th Commandment ;

5. Does it prohibit the slaying of animals for food ?

6. Does it prohibit defensive war, or forcible self-defence by persons?

7. Are capital punishments righteous ?

8. What is the moral character of dueling?

Shorter Catechism, Qu. 63-69. Larger Cat., Qu. 123-136. Calvin's Inst., bk. ii, ch. 8, § 35-40. Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 16, 17. Green's Lect. 46-50. Ridgeley's Divinity, Qu. 123-136. Hopkins on the Ten Commandments. Hodge's Theology, Vol. iii, ch. 19, \ 9, 10. "American Peace Society" Publications.

A^T'E enter now upon the consideration of the Second Table.

The immediate objects of the duties of this table are our

fellow-men. But still, the breach of one of them is a sin

against God also, because it is He who has enjoined them, and

has placed us in those relations in which the duties arise.

As the first table began with that which is fundamental to

^ , ^.^, all religion, the pointing out of the only I. Scope of the Fifth rw.- ^ r i- • ■ .1

Commandment. Pa- proper Object of religious service; so the

rents represent all Su- second table begins with that duty which is P^"*""^* fundamental to all social duties, and the most

important of all ; subjection to domestic authority. I must here again remind you of the rule of interpretation laid down at the outset, that a whole class of duties is enjoined, and of sins forbidden, under one prominent specimen. So, we under- stand that here, under the example of filial duties, all the rela- tive duties between superiors and inferiors, in the Family, the Church, and the Commonwealth, are included. Not only the duties of children to parents, but of servants to masters, pupils to teachers, and people to rulers in Church and State, are here implied. If these, most important classes of social duties are not intended to be included in this precept, then they are nowhere in the decalogue : for there is no other precept where they can be fairly embraced. Can we believe that the sum- mary so omits what the subsequent Scriptures so often enforce in detail? The including of all these duties under the fifth commandment will seem far more natural, if we remember that the original forms of government in the old world were all patriarchal ; in which the father was the head, priest, and prince of all his descendants and servants. The family was no doubt the germ out of which civil institutions and the organ- ized Church grew. The Jewish nation was just now passing, 398

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 399

in part, out of this patriarchal form ; and many of its features were retained in the Mosaic government. How natural then, to an ancient Israelite, to represent the general idea of civil and ecclesiastical superiors under the term Parents ? Servants (who were usually slaves) were on much the same footing in ancient society with children. Kings were called Fathers, i Sam. xxiv : II. Prophets were generally addressed as Fathers, by the young men entrusted to their religious instruction, who, in turn, were called "sons of the prophets," 2 Kings ii : 3 and 12. Many duties are of a reciprocal nature. Obligation on one side implies a correlative obligation on

ci?ocF''""' ^'^ ^^' ^^^^ ^^^^^^- ^^^^^ ^^^^ duties of inferiors im- ply the reciprocal duties of superiors. Un- der this commandment then, are included the duties of parents towards their children, masters towards servants, rulers towards subjects, church -teachers towards their charges. Thus, we find that St. Paul, in the former part of the sixth chapter of Ephes- ians, (which may fairly be taken as his exposition of the fifth commandment), begins with the duties of children towards parents, but follows it up immediately with the duties of parents towards their children ; and after instructing servants, proceeds immediately to instruct their masters. We feel there- fore fully justified in giving the fifth commandment the gen- eral scope assigned to it. in the Catechism. "The general scope of the fifth commandment is the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals."

2. It is under this head of the decalogue, that the impor- tant Scripture doctrine of the civil magistrate, and duty of citi- zens, should fall, which is the subject of the 23d chapter of our Confession. But this is a subject of so much importance, that I reserve it for separate discussion in the Senior course. The details of the other duties of inferiors and superiors may be seen so fully stated in your catechisms, that it would be mere repetition to recite them here.

The fifth commandment is peculiar in closing with a prom- ise to encourage to its observance : " That Pr^mis^'^'^^"* °^ ^^^ ^^y ^^ys ""la-y be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The first recipient of the promise was the Nation ; and it may be na- tional permanency which is pledged. But the Apostle applies it (Eph. vi : 2), to Christian children, after Israel was cast out. This authorizes us to give it a personal application. As a long life spent in adversity would be no boon, this promise is obvi- ously understood as one of " long life and prosperity." We understand it to give us that encouragement which is also pre- sented by the established connection of causes and effects in God's providence, where the faithful and general performance of the duties of inferiors and superiors, and especially of pa-

400 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

rents and children, ensures, as far as any earthly means can, general health, peace, prosperity and temporal welfare ; whereas the anarchical neglect of those duties, and especially of the parental and filial, plunges every society into violence, disease, disorder, misery, and premature death. We do not understand God's promise in this commandment as absolute and universal. To claim this would be to claim that God should work for duti- ful sons a continual miracle, in suspending the mutual influen- ces of men on each other's welfare, by which the virtuous, especially when few, share the calamities procured by the more prevalent crimes of the wicked. The first promise is given to a society (as to Israel) in the aggregate. The general perform- ance of the duty is necessary to ensure the happy result. If there is a general neglect of the duties, as in our day, it must result in calamities ; and some of the most dutiful of our sons may fall, as many a virtuous Confederate soldier fell, in the prime of his days, in the general disorder.

The sixth commandment is in these terse words : "Thou shalt not kill." Its obvious scope is the ColnmtXenf ''''^' preservation of life. It forbids all that un- righteously assails our own and others' lives, and enjoins all suitable means for the preservation of both. This command is based upon these two great truths : that life is God's gift, and therefore to be abridged or taken away only at His command ; and that life is of supreme value to every man. In robbing a man of life, you would virtually rob him of every valuable thing which life includes. It is committing against a fellow-man every species of robbery in one. The Scriptures also ground the prohibition of taking man's life on his likeness to God. Gen. ix : 6. " For in the image of God made He man. James iii : 9 ; also founds the lesser sin of slander and reviling partly on the same fact. Man's rational, moral and immortal nature is the chief glory of his being; it reflects the glory of God's. Hence, to invade this being is at once the most enormous wrong against the creature, and an act of impiety against God.

We have here then, another instance of the profoundly logical arrangement which infinite wisdom has given to the decalogue. The second table, after fixing those relative duties out of which society itself emerges, then proceeds to protect, first, that value which is transcendent with ever>^ man — his tem- poral existence. It then secures that which is next in order of essential importance — man's chastity, including the purity of the marital relation, the foundation of the domestic ; and postpones to the last those duties of commutative righteous- ness, and of truth, which are the outer bonds of society.

But when God says, " Thou shalt not kill," what are the

. . , , .. things whose slaying is thus inhibited?

5. Animal Life may t> . n i r r 4.- • n^ ■ 4.-

be Taken There IS a small class oi tanatics ni Christian

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 401

lands, larger in some Pagan ones, who answer, that we may kill nothing that has animal life. Hence the use of the flesh of quad- rupeds, birds, and fishes, for food, is of course inhibited by them. This party is known in America as Grahamites. Their tendency is infidel; for the Bible speaks too plainly on this subject to be questioned by any devout believer. We read that God gave to Adam and his family only the vegetable world for food, assigning him the use of the animals as his servants. (Hence, the skins in which God clothed Adam and Eve after their fall, must have come either from the religious sacrifices which He taught them to offer, the more probable surmise ; or from beasts which died by the vio- lence of their own kind, or by disease). But after the flood, the fruitfulness of the earth having been probably impaired for all subsequent time, God expressly gave Noah and his family the privilege of eating the flesh of animals, only reserving the blood, with which they should " make atonement for their souls upon the altar." This permission is doubtless now valid. It was expressly continued to the Hebrews, in the distinction of the clean beasts. It is equally certain that it was not abro- gated after Christ came ; for we find Him, even after His resur- rection (Luke xxiv : 43 ; Jno. xxi : 9), eating the flesh of fishes, and encouraging His followers to do so. See also Rom. xiv : 3, and I Cor. x : 25.

Reason approves this. The sanctity of human life is placed, where inspiration places it (in Gen. ix : 6), in man's rational responsibility and immortality. The life of the beast, " whose spirit goeth downward," is no such inviolable boon to him. And while we admit that the duty of benevolence extends to the brutes, as does God's benevolence, we argue that the employment of animals for food has, on. the whole, greatly promoted their animal well-being. For man thus has a sufficient motive for their careful nurture, whereas otherwise he would regard them as nuisances.

Still another, and a larger class of fanatics, hold that there c n % 1 r. • u are no circumstances under which human life

6. Capital Punish- ^ r ^^ ^ /^1 • • i-l

ments and Defensive Can be taken lawfully by man. Llaimmg tne War, O.C., Not Forbid- admission which we have made, that life is to ^^^"" man God's loan, they urge that no creature

can -under any circumstances assume authority to take it away from his fellow man. Hence it must follow that personal self- defence against unrighteous aggression, that the defensive wars of commonwealths, and the infliction of capital punishments upon the most enormous criminals even, are all unlawful. Here is the theory of the "non-resistance" and the "peace parties."

I may make the same remark of these, that they are virtu- Arguments— Macris- ally infidel parties. If the authority of the trate ''slays by Dele- Scriptures is admitted, their conclusions are gated Authority. obviously false. They are obviously illogi-

26*

402 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

cal. It is true that human hfe is God's loan to His creatures. No one may take it away without the authority of the Divine Giver. It is therefore simply a question of revealed testimony, whether God has, in any cases, deputized to man, or to society, the authority to take life. If He has, then it is God's author- ity which, in the appropriate case, takes away the boon ; and the human agent is merely God's executioner. It is, then, simply a question of fact as to the Scriptural teachings.

It life is thus sacred, as God's boon, and is man's one pos-

r^ ,r-^ r r scsslon of transccndeut value, then to take

Self-JJcfence Law- •, ^.^ j. ■ ■[ . ■

f^^l it away without right is an enormous outrage.

Suppose this outrage is obviously about to be perpetrated by an aggressor upon an innocent person. Sup- pose, also, that the protection of the law is absent, and can- not be successfully invoked? What shall the defendant do? Is it his duty to be passive and yield up his life ; or to take the defensive, and protect it by force, even to the extent of taking the assailant's life if necessary ? Human laws and conscience concur in the latter answer. Remember that the aggressor unrighteously creates the dilemma, making it necessary that at least one life must go. Whose had best go ? Obviously the life of the criminal, rather than that of the innocent man. Again: If law subsequently has its just course, the murderer, after his guilty success, will have to die for it. The case is then still stronger : that the passive theory sacrifices two lives, one innocent ; whereas the theory of self-defence saves the righteous life, and only sacrifices the guilty one. Our conclusion is also confirmed by the existence in us of the emotion of lawful resentment, the righteousness of which, within its proper bounds, the. Saviour allows (Matt, v : 22 ; Eph. iv : 26). For if there is no forcible self-defence against wrong, there is no reasonable scope for this emotion.

The Scriptures expressly confirm us. The right of slaying the house-breaker clearly implies a right of self-defence. Exod, xxii : 2. The law of the cities of refuge contains the same right. Numb, xxxv : 22. The effect of this permission is evaded, indeed, .by the pretence that Moses' legislation was imperfect and barbarous, and is corrected by the milder instruc- tions of our Saviour. Matt, v : 39. But I have taught you the falsehoood of this notion, and showed you that the Old Testa- ment teaches precisely the same morality with the New,

As to the delegation of the right of capital punishment ^ . , ^ . , for flagrant crimes, the feeble attempt has

Capital Punishment , ■• ^ . .^ ■ • . r

in Scripture. been made to represent the injunction 01

Gen. ix : 6 as not a precept, but a prediction ; not as God's instruction what ought to be done to the mur- derer, but His prophecy of what human vindictiveness would do. The context refutes this. This command for the capi- tal punishment of the murderer, having been given to Noah,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 4O3

the second father of mankind, and before there was a chosen people, is of course, universal. Look also at the express injunction of capital punishments for several crimes in the Pen- tateuch : for murder, Num. xxxv : 31 ; for striking a parent, Exod. xxi : 15 : for adultery, Levit. xx : 10; for religious im- posture, Deut. xiii : 5, &c. In Numb, xxxv : 33, a reason is given which, on general principles, necessitates the capital punishment of murder : " For blood, it defileth a land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Capital punishments are also authorized in the New Testament. Rom. xiii assures us that the magistrate "beareth not the sword in vain," but in bearing it he is God's minister to execute wrath upon the evil- doer.

Unprovoked war is the most monstrous secular crime that

^ ^ . ,„ can be committed : it is at once the greatest

7. Defensive War r ■^ j-ij.i . c r

l^awM. °* evils, and mcludes the worst forms of

robbery and murder. Wherever war is prompted by mere pique, or lust of aggrandizement, or am- bition for fame and power, it deserves all that can be said of its mischiefs and criminality by the most zealous advocates of peace. And nothing can rescue a people waging war, from this guilt, except the fact that their appeal to arms is necessary for the defence of just and vital rights. But while the Scrip- tures teach this, they give no countenance to the weak fanati- cism, which commands governments to practice a passive non-resistance, in such a world as this. Nations are usually unjust and unscrupulous. The very fact that they are politi- cally sovereign implies that there is no umpire between them, except Divine Providence. A passive attitude would usually only provoke, instead of disarming attack. Hence its only effect would be to bring all the horrors and desolations of invasion upon the innocent people, while the guilty went free. God has therefore both permitted and instructed rulers, when thus unjustly assailed, to retort these miseries upon the assail- ants who introduce them. The very fact that all war is so ter- rific a' scourge, and that aggressive war is such an enormous crime, only makes it more clear that the injured party are entitled to their redress, and are justified in inflicting on the injurers such chastisement as will compel their return to justice, even including the death and ruin which they were preparing against their inoffensive neighbors.

It is perfectly clear that Sacred Scripture legalizes such defensive war. Abram, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Josiah, the Maccabees, were such warriors : and they were God's chosen saints. It was " through faith they waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." Heb. xi : 34. God fought for and with them by giving, in their battles, answers to their prayers, and miraculous assistance to their

404 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

arms. Under the New Testament, when Christ's forerunner was preaching the baptism of repentance, he did not enjoin on soldiers the surrender of their profession as sinful, but only the restricting of themselves to its lawful duties. The New Testa- ment tells us of a Centurion, affectionately commended by our Redeemer as possessed of "great faith;" and of a Cornelius, who was " accepted with God, as fearing Him and working righteousness." Luke iii:i4; vii : 9; Acts x : 35. The Apostle Paul, Rom. xiii : 4, tells us that the magistrate " bear- eth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." It would be strange indeed, if the ruler who is armed by God with the power of capital punishment against the domestic murderer, could not justly inflict the same doom on the foreign criminal, who invades our soil unprovoked, for the purpose of shedding blood. The security of life and property which the magistrate is intended to provide by his power of punishing, would be illusory indeed, if it could only be used against individual crim- inals, while the more mischievous and widespread crimes of organized multitudes must go unpunished. Aggressive, war is wholesale murder; and when the government sends out its army to repel and chastise the invader, it does but inflict sum- mary execution on the murderer caught in the act.

The modern duel is a very peculiar usage, which has 8. Dueling Murder, descended to US from a perversion of an institution of chivalry ; the ordeal by battle. This was a means adopted by the ignorance of the middle ages, to appeal to God's judgment where the question of right was too obscure to be unravelled by their rude courts. It was founded on an abuse of the doctrine of Providence. Because the Scriptures teach that this providence is concerned in all events, the Middle Ages jumped to the conclusion, that this providence would so decide the issue, as to vindicate justice. It needs no argument to show you the fallacy. Since the intel- hgence of modern days has exploded the idea of the divine ordeal, the duel remains a barbarous remnant of the middle ages, without even the shadow of an argument in its favor.

In refuting the arguments by which the duel is defended, I

, r . shall not take the ground that the sentiment Arguments for it r 11 • • • 1 1 •

Futile. o^ personal honour is irrational or unchris-

tian; I shall not assume that it is no real injury to wound it. My position is, that the duel is no proper remedy for that injuiy. And, first : the only lawful object, when one is wounded in his honour, is self-defence, and not revenge. The latter is expressly forbidden in every case. Now, for the de- fence of one's honour and good name, a duel is naught. Per- haps where malignant* passions are not harboured, the chal- lenger to a duel is most frequently actuated by this feeling ; that his passive endurance of an insult will cause his fellow-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 405

men to think him a coward ; and that therefore he must expose himself to the dangers of combat, in order to evince that he is not a coward; and thus retrieve his credit. Now dueHng does not prove courage ; for notoriously, if some brave men have fought, so have many cowards. It only proves a species of moral cowardice, which shrinks from the path of rectitude, and cowers before the finger of scorn. It is yet more obvious that the issue of the duel will prove nothing as to the truth or false- hood of the charge which constituted the insult. If one calls me a liar, and I kill him therefor, this shows nothing whatever as to my truth or falsehood. The proper and reasonable remedy here, is to require the accuser to substantiate his charge, or else confess its injustice. His refusal to do either would place him so effectually in the wrong, that no other reparation would be needed.

Another objection to the duel is, that it usually prevents, „ 1 n f ■ ^'^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ most deadly manner, that

very fairness and equality which it boasts of securing. The plea is, that it puts the weak man equal to the strong one, by appealing from mere, brute muscle, to arms and skill. But according to its laws, the duel authorizes an inequal- ity of skill far more deadly. I am ignorant of the use of the pistol. A violent and malignant man who knows himself a dead shot, so outrages me that I am impelled under the code of honour, to challenge him. He, exercising the right of the chal- lenged, chooses pistols. Thus he has me more completety at a disadvantage than if he were a pugilist of the first fame, and I an infant ; and the result is not a parcel of bruises, but my death. The system is, when tried by its own pretences, flagrantly unfair.

It is also absurdly unequal in this : that if its proceedings

have any justice, then it puts the righteous Inm^ed^UnTusl °^ ^ "^''^^'^ ^^^ ^^^^ culprit on the same footing.

Unless the challenger is committing a mon- strous wrong, he must hold that the challenged is a capital criminal: for does he not claim that it is right to subject .him to the liability of a capital punishment ? Why then should the innocent man, already so grievously wronged, when he pro- ceeds to inflict the righteous penalty, give the culprit equal chances to inflict the same penalty on him ? Shall the magis- trate, in putting a condemned felon to death, courteously invite him to take his equal chances to put the magistrate to death ? What more absurd ? If the assailant really deserves to die, and this is duly ascertained (if it is not, the challenger is guilty of murder in seeking to slay an innocent man) then by all means, let him be killed, without giving him opportunity to per- petrate another unprovoked crime. When one has to kill a mad dog, he does not feel bound to give the dog a chance to bite him !

406 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Last, the dueling code is a monstrous one, because it

makes the man who supposes himself

T d^^^*^^"^^^^^ ^^ wronged, accuser, judge, and executioner in

his own cause. It is righteously then, that

the statute laws of the Commonwealth treat the duelist who

has slain his adversary, as a murderer with prepense malice.

One plea for dueling is, that it is the necessary chastise- ment for classes of sins, (as against one's good name, against the chastitY of one's family) for which the laws afford either no remedy, or such a one as no man of delicacy can seek. The answer is : that if the facts are true, they are arguments for perfecting the penal laws, not for the iniquities of dueling. Another argument is, that nothing but the code of honour will secure chivalrous man- ners ; which it boasts of doing through the influence of the knowledge that the man who departs from that style of man- ners is in danger of a challenge. The answers are two. Surely that courtesy has little claim to be chivalrous, which is only coerced by fear? And facts show that the influence of the code is not what is claimed; for the societies where it has fullest sway, are sometimes the rudest and most debauched.

SYLLABUS

1. What are the scope and extent of the yth Commandment, and what sins are forbidden under it ?

2. What the degree of guiU in adultery, and what its grounds ?

3. Was polygamy ever lawful? Explain Moses' law of divorce. Is celibacy meritorious ?

Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. i8. Hodge's Theology, pt. iii, oh. 19, g II. Dr. C. C. Jones' Histoiy of Israelitish Nation. Michaelis' Com. on Laws of jMoses.

4. Ought this precept to be publicly preached ?

5. What is the scope of the 8th Commandment, and what the particular duties and sins embraced under it ?

6. What is the origin of the Right of Private Property ?

7. Is usury lawful ?

8. Wliat rule should govern the Christian as to making gain of his neighbor's necessities ?

Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 19. Hodge as above, § 12. See, on whole, Larger Catechism, Qu. 137-142. Calvin's Inst. bk. ii, ch. 8, g 41-46. Ridgeley's Div., Qu. 137-142. Bp. Hopkins on 7th and 8th Commandments. Green's Lect. 51-53.

A S has been already observed, the scope of the seventh

-^ commandment is to regulate the relations between the

sexes, with all the virtues of purity connected

I. Scope of Seventh ti^grcwith. These virtues are the basis of Commandment. . , . . , .

the domestic relations. And as the tamily is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 4O7

the foundation of human society, the importance of the class of duties involved is second only to those which preserve man's existence itself. It should be added also, that the sins against personal purity are peculiarly flagrant, because they involve in sensual bestiality the body which is the habitation of the rational, responsible soul, and the temple of the Holy Ghost. See I Cor. vi : 15, &c. Experience also shows that sins of unchastity have a peculiarly imbruting and degrading effect on both sexes, but especially on that which should be the purer, seducing them to hypocrisy, lying, treachery, cruelty, drunken- ness, gluttony, and shamelessness. For the usual details of the sins embraced under the capital instance, adultery, I refer you to your catechisms.

Adultery, in strictness of speech, is the sin of illicit cohabi- tation by a married person. Its eminence in adultery.'"'"^ ''^ ° criminality is due to these traits ; that in addition to the uncleanness, it involves the breach of the marriage contract, and the treachery contained therein ; and that by corrupting the descent of families, it up- roots the whole foundation of domestic society. Adultery and causeless divorce are directly antagonistic thereto. They are therefore deadly stabs against all home affections, against all training of children, against every rudiment of social order. Were all to take the license of the adulterer, men would in due time be reduced precisely to the degradation of wild beasts. The sin of the adulterer therefore, is scarcely less enormous than that of the murderer. The latter destroys man's temporal existence ; the former destroys all that makes existence a boon. Let the crime of the adulterer be tried by its effects upon the family it invades. We must either suppose that the husband and wife have, or have not, the sentiments of modesty, natural jealousy, purity, and shame, usually imputed to virtuous per- sons. If they have not, then the lack of them implies a degra- dation which can only make them the parents of reprobates ; and the general prevalence of such a type of character would dissolve domestic society into ultimate putrescence. If the parents have those sentiments, then the success of the seducer plunges the husband into agonies of revenge, despair and wounded affection, the guilty wife into a shame and remorse deeper than the grave, the children into privation of a mother, and all the parties into a bereavement at least as irreparable as that of a death, and far more bitter. It would have been, in some aspects, a less crime to murder the mother while innocent. The laws of Moses, therefore, very properly made adultery a capital crime ; nor does our Saviour, in the ^^Proper Punishment -^^-^^^^^ ^f th^ ^^^^^^ t^ken in adultery,

repeal that statute, or disallow its justice. The legislation of modern, nominally Christian nations, is drawn rather from the grossness of Pagan sources than from Bible

408 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

principles. The common law of England, and the statutes and usages which our Commonwealth has drawn thence, present a most inconsistent state. There is no statute whatever for pun- ishing adultery as a crime ! And yet a usage, which is as fully recognized both in England and Virginia as any common law, entitles juries to acquit the injured husband of murder who slays the violator of his bed in heat of blood. This seems to be a recognition of the capital guilt of the crime of adultery, and at the same time an allowance, in this case, of the barbarous prin- ciple of ' goelism,' which the law, in all other cases, has so stringently prohibited. But here is the monstrous inconsis- tency, that if the crime of the adulterer be of long standing, and gradually discovered, no matter how certain the guilt, the husband, because no longer punishing in heat of blood, is debarred from inflicting the just punishment. The only other remedy that remains at the law is an action of damages against the seducer, in which the injured husband is constrained to degrade all his wrongs to the sordid, pecuniary plea of the loss of his wife's services, as a domestic, by this interference. A.nd juries are instructed, after ascertaining that there has been an unjust interruption of the wife's domestic services, to appraise the compensation, not at its commercial, but at any imaginary value, which the seducer's wealth may enable him to pay. Such is the wretched fiction which the law offers to the out- raged spouse as the satisfaction for his wrongs.

It has always seemed to me that much causeless doubt and _. ,_ debate exist among expositors, and that many

3. Divorce and Po- . •, j • • 1 1 j u i-i

lygamy in Pentateuch, gratuitous admissions have been made by the most of them, touching the true status of polygamy and divorce in the Old Testament. But so much misapprehension exists about the two cases, that the general interests of truth prompt a little farther separate discussion of each. The two enactments touching divorce which present the supposed contradiction in the strongest form, are those of Moses in Deut. xxiv : i to 4, and Matt, xix : 3 to 9. These the reader is requested to have under his eye. The form of the Pharisees' question to Christ, " Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? " concurs with the testimony of Josephus, in teaching us that a monstrous perversion of Moses' statute then prevailed. The licentious, and yet self-righteous Pharisee claimed, as one of his most unquestioned privileges, the right to repudiate a wife, after the lapse of years, and birth of children, for any caprice whatsoever. The trap which they now laid for Christ was designed to compel him either to incur the odium of attacking this usage, guarded by a jealous anger, or to connive at their interpretation of the statute. Manifestly Christ does not concede that they interpreted Moses rightly; but indignantly clears the legislation of that holy man from their licentious perversions, and then, because of their abuse of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 4O9

it, repeals it by His plenary authority. He refers to that con- stitution of the marriage tie which was original, which preceded Moses,, and was therefore binding when Moses wrote, to show that it was impossible he could have enacted what they claimed. What, then, did Moses enact? Let us explain it. In the ancient society of the East, females being reared in com- parative seclusion, and marriages negotiated by intermediaries, the bridegroom had little opportunity for a familiar acquaint- ance even with the person of the bride. When she was brought to him at the nuptials, if he found her disfigured with some personal deformity or disease, (the undoubted meaning of the phrase " some uncleanness "), which effectually changed desire into disgust, he was likely to regard himself as swindled in the treaty, and to send the rejected bride back with indignity to her father's house. There she was reluctantly received, and in the anomalous position of one in name a wife, yet without a husband, she dragged out a wretched existence, incapable of marriage, and regarded by her parents and brothers as a dis- graceful incumbrance. It was to relieve the wretched fate of such a woman that Moses' law was framed. She was empow- ered to exact of her proposed husband a formal annulment of the unconsummated contract, and to resume the status of a single woman, eligible for another marriage. It is plain that Moses' law contemplates the case, only, in which no consumma- tion of marriage takes place. She finds no favour in the eyes " of the bridegroom." He is so indignant and disgusted that desire is put to. flight by repugnance. The same fact appears from the condition of the law, that she shall in no case return to this man, " after she is defiled," i. e., after actual cohabita- tion with another man had made her unapproachable (without moral defilement) by the first. Such was the narrow extent of this law. The act for which it provided was divorce only in name, where that consensus, qui matrivioiduni facit, in the words of the law maxim, had never been perfected. The state of social usages among the Hebrews, with parental and fraternal severity towards the unfortunate daughter and sister, rendered the legislation of Moses necessary and righteous at the time ; but " a greater than Moses " was now here ; and He, after defending the inspired law-giver from their vile misrepresenta- tion, proceeded to repeal the law, because it had been so per- verted, and because the social changes of the age had removed its righteous grounds.

Under the New Testament, divorce proper can take place only on two grounds, adultery and permanent desertion. See Matt, xix : 9; v : 32; i Cor. vii : 15. A careful examination of these passages will lead us to these truths : That marriage is a permanent and exclusive union of one woman to one man ; and so, can only be innocently dissolved by death : But that extreme criminality and breach of contract by one party anni-

410 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

hilates the bond so that the criminal is as though he were dead to the other : That the only sins against the bond, which have this effect, are those which are absolutely incompatible \yith the relation, adultery, and wilful, final desertion. In these cases, the bond having been destroyed for the innocent party, he is as completely a single man, as though the other were dead. Some commonwealths have added many other trivial causes of divorce ; thus sinning grievously against God and the purity of the people. The Church may not recognize by her officers or acts, any of these unscriptural grounds, or the pretended divorces founded on them.

The case of the polygamist is still clearer ; for we assert that the whole legislation of the Pentateuch and of all the Old Testament is only adverse to polygamy. As some Christian divines have taught otherwise, we must ask the reader's atten- tion and patience for a brief statement. Polygamy is recorded of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon ; but so are other sins of several of these ; and, as every intelligent reader knows, the truthful narrative of holy writ as often dis- closes the sins of good men for our warning, as their virtues for our imitation. And he who notes how, in every Bible instance, polygamy appears as the cause of domestic feuds, sin, and dis- aster, will have little doubt that the Holy Spirit tacitly holds all these cases up for our caution, and not our approval. But, then, God made Adam one wife only, and taught him the great law of the perpetual unity of the twain, just as it is now expounded by Jesus Christ, (Genesis ii : 23, 24, with Matthew xix : 4 to 6). God preserved but one wife each to Noah and his sons. In every statute and preceptive word of the Holy Spirit, it is always wife, and not wives. The prophets everywhere teach how to treat a wife, and not wives. Moses, Leviticus xviii : 18, in the code regulating marriage, expressly prohibits the mar- riage of a second wife in the life of the first, thus enjoining monogamy in terms as clear as Christ's. Our English version hath it: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other, in her life- time." Many insist on taking the word sister here in its literal sense, and thus force on the law the meaning that the man desiring to practice polygamy may do so, provided he does not marry two daughters of the same parents ; for if he did this, the two sisters sharing his bed would, like Rachel and Leah, quarrel more fiercely than two strangers. But the word "sister" must undoubtedly be taken in the sense of mates, fel- lows, (which it bears in a number of places, e. g., Exod. xxvi 3, 5, 6, 17 ; Ezek. i : 9 and iii : 13), and this for two controlling reasons. The other sense makes Moses talk nonsense and folly, in the supposed reason for his prohibition ; in that it makes him argue that two sisters sharing one man's bed will quarrel, but two women having no kindred blood will not. It

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 411

is false to fact and to nature. Did Leah and Rachel show more jealousy than Sarah and Hagar, Hannah and Peninnah? But when we understand the law in its obvious sense, that the husband shall not divide his bed with a second mate, the first still living, because such a wrong ever harrows and outrages the great instincts placed in a woman's heart by her Creator, we make Moses talk truth and logic worthy of a profound legis- lator. The other reason for this construction is, that the other sense places the i8th verse in irreconcilable contradiction to the i6th verse. This forbids the marriage of a woman to the husband of her deceased sister ; while the i8th verse, with this false reading, would authorize it.

Once more: Malachi (chap, ii : 14, 15), rebuking the vari- ous corruptions of the Jews, evidently includes polygamy ; for he argues m favour of monogamy (and also against causeless divorce) from the fact that God, " who had the residue of the Spirit," and could as easily have created a thousand women for each man as a single one, made the numbers of the sexes equal from the beginning. He states this as the motive, " that He might seek a godly seed;" that is to say, that the object of God in the marriage relation was the right rearing of children, which polygamy notoriously hinders. Now the commission of an Old Testament prophet was not to legislate a new dispensa- tion, for the laws of Moses were in full force ; the prophets' business was to expound them. Hence, we infer that the laws of the Mosaic dispensation on the subject of polygamy had always been such as Malachi declared them. He was but applying Moses' principles.

To the assertion that the law of the Old Testament dis- countenanced polygamy as really as the New Testament, it has been objected that the practice was maintained by men too pious towards God to be capable of continuing in it against express precept ; as, for instance, by the " king after God's own heart," David. Did not he also commit murder and adultery ? Surely there is no question whether Moses forbids these ! The history of good men, alas ! shows us too plainly the power of general evil example, custom, temptation, and self-love, in blinding the honest conscience. It has been objected that polygamy was so universally practised, and so prized, that Moses would never have dared to attempt its extinction. When will men learn that the author of the Old Testament law was not Moses, but God? Is God timid? Does He fear to deal firmly with His creatures? But it is denied that there is any evidence that polygamy was greatly prevalent among the Hebrews. And nothing is easier than to show that, if it had been, Moses was a legislator bold enough to grapple with it. What more hardy than his dealing with the sabbatical year, with idolatry? It is objected that the marriage of the widow who was childless to the brother of the deceased, to raise up

412 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

seed to the dead, presents a case of polygamy actually com- manded. We reply, no one can show that the next of kin was permitted or required to form such marriage when he already had a wife. The celebrated J. D. Michaelis, a witness learned and not too favourable, says, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, of this law, " Nor did it affect a brother having already a wife of his own." Book iii, ch. vi. § 98.

It is objected that polygamy is recognized as a permitted relation in Deut. xxi : 15-17, where the husband of a polygam- ous marriage is forbidden to transfer the brirthright from tiie eldest son to a younger, the child of a more favoured wife ; and in Exod. xxi : 9, 10, where the husband is forbidden to deprive a less favoured wife of her marital rights and maintenance. Both these cases are explained by the admitted principle, that there may be relations which it was sin to form, and which yet it is sinful to break when formed. No one doubts whether the New Testament makes polygamy unlawful ; yet it seems prob- able that the apostles gave the same instructions to the hus- bands of a plurality of wives entering the Christian Church. There appears, then, no evidence that polygamy was allowed in the laws of Moses.

The light of nature, as revealed in the sentiments of nearly all mankind, teaches that there are degrees of relationship, between which marriage would be unnatural and monstrous. Thus, most commonwealths make incest penal. The only place in the Scriptures, where these degrees are laid down, is Levit. xviii. Concerning this place two important questions arise: i. Is this law still binding? 2. How is it to be ex- pounded? We hold that this law, although found in the Hebrew code, has not passed away ; because neither ceremo- nial nor typical, and because founded in traits of man and society common to alt races and ages. We argue also, pre- sumptively, that if this law is a dead one, then the Scriptures con- tain nowhere a distinct legislation against this great crime of incest. But we have more positive proof In the law itself it is extended to foreigners dwelling in Israel. (Levit. xviii : 26) • and to all pagan nations, equally with the Hebrew, (verses 24 to 27). In the New Testament, we find the same law enforced by the Apostle Paul, i Cor. v : i. For this incestuous mem- ber ^ evidently took his step-mother as his wife. Unless this Levitical law is the one on which this man is condemned, there is no other. The permanent, rational grounds, for prohibiting marriage within these degrees, seem to be the following : The marital affection is unique, and such that it cannot righteously obtain towards more than one object. But the virtuous social affections, which should obtain towards near relatives, embrace all such with similar sentiments, though varying in degree. The one affection is incompatible with the other. The fraternal, for instance, excludes marital. Second, if the more intimate rela-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 413

tions were legitimately in prospect, between persons who must before live in the daily intimacy of the same home, temptation presented by this privacy and opportunity would corrupt the family and reduce it to a bestial grossness. And third : man's animal nature now utters its protest, by the deterioration and congenital infirmities, which it visits usually on the unfortunate children of these marriages within lawful degrees. Naturalists now teach, that among the lower animals, the deterioration of offspring from " breeding in " depends on the question, whether the blood of the parents is purely of one variety. They say that if it is, no depreciation appears. But if the parents are of a mixed stock, " breeding in " results in a rapid decline of the progeny.

This curious fact may perhaps throw some light on the dif- ficult question : whence Adam's son's drew their wives without incest. We, who hold to the unity of the race, must answer that they married their own sisters. Must we admit then, that an act which is now monstrous, was then legitimate ? Does not this admission tend to place the law against incest among the merely positive and temporary precepts ? The only reply is : that the trite saw, " Circumstances alter cases," has some proper applications even to problems essentially moral. The peculiar condition of the human family may have rendered that proper at first, which, under changed conditions became mor- ally wrong. Among these circumstances, was the purity or homogeneity of the blood. There was absolutely but the one variety of the. human race ; so that deterioration of the prog- eny by physical law could not follow. But now, in consequence of the dispersions and immigrations of the race, the blood of every tribe is mixed, and breeding in becomes a crime against the offspring. But we know too little of the scanty history of the first men, to speculate with safety here. The command to replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve in their pure estate, in which, had it continued, incest, like every other sin, would have been impossible. Who can deny, but that the mar- riages contracted between the sons and daughters of the first parents, after the fall, were sinful in God's eyes? It is not un- reasonable to suppose that, thus, the very propagation of the degraded race, to which its present earthly existence under the mercy of God is due, began in sin and shame ; that its very perpetuation is the tolerated consequence of a flagrant crime !

Every Christian Church and commonwealth has acted on the belief, that this Levitical law fixes, for all subsequent time, the degrees within v/hich marriage is lawful. The second ques- tion is touching its interpretation. We must either assume that every degree within which God designed to prohibit marriage is expressly mentioned in the law : or that the prohibitions men- tioned are representatives of classes. The former construction is excluded by this thought ; that it would have permitted cases

414 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of incest precisely as unnatural and monstrous as those so sternly forbidden. Why should it be a crime for a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother ; and legitimate for a woman to marry the husband of a deceased sister ? Hence, all sound expositors are agreed in this view. That when mar- riage within a given relationship is forbidden, this excludes the connection between other corresponding degrees of the same nearness. The law in some cases, as in verse lO, extends itself on this principle, and thus confirms our construction.

Rome and many other corrupt Churches, while allowing marriage to be lawful for laymen, yet exalt celibacy as a state of superior purity and excellence. She seeks to find ground for this, in such passages as Matt, xix ; 11-13 ; i Cor. vii : 34. We set her plea aside, by showing that the New Testament only advises celibacy as a matter of prudence, (not of sanctity) in times of persecution and uncertainty. Rome's doctrine finds its real origin in the philosophy of the Gnostics and Mani- chaeans, who regarded the flesh as the source of all evil, and hence its propagation as unholy. The same error led them to deny Christ's corporeal humanity, and the resurrection of the body. It needs no refutation here. That " marriage is honour- able in all," we argue from man's very nature, as male and female : from the fact that God instituted it for man in Para- dise : from the example of the holiest prophets : from the fact that it is the chosen type of Christ's union to his Church : and from its necessity to the existence of man's most holy social affections, as the maternal.

A supposed obligation of propriety and delicacy has usu- r;- . ^c a ally kept our pulpits silent concerning the

oins against oGventh -' x^ jt jt o

Commandment to be sins of uncliastity ; and hence, no doubt, in Rebuked with Sane- large part, the shocking callousness and un- '^' soundness of public opinion concerning the

sins of its breach. It is my opinion that this omission should be corrected by the pastors. When I say this, I would not by any means be understood as encouraging ministers to disregard any sentiment of delicacy or propriety .which may exist. On the contrary, all such sentiments, where not positively false, are to be honoured by him ; and he should be, in all his intercourse, the model of delicacy. But there is a guarded and holy way of discussing such subjects, which clearly reveals chastity and not pruriency as its temper, axid purity as its object. This is the style in which the pastor should speak on these difficult subjects.

In discussing the eighth commandment, we proceed from

the duties of chastity to those of commu-

Commandment. '^^' tative justice. The scope of the command

is to protect the rights of property. Under

the simple head of " stealing" it " forbids whatsoever doth or

may unjustly hinder our own, or our neighbour's wealth and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 415

outward estate ;" and " requireth the lawful procuring and fur- therance of the wealth of ourselves and others." This expo- sition implies that there is a sense in which a man may steal from himself. While there is a sense in which our property belongs to us, and not to our neighbour, and his to him, and not to us ; yet we are all stewards of God, and in the higher sense, all property belongs to Him. Obviously then, God's property right may be as- much outraged by our misuse of what is law- fully in our stewardship, as by interfering with another's trust. The forms in which the worldly estate of our neighbour may be wronged, are innumerable. The essence of theft is in the vio- lation of the Golden Rule as to our neighbour's property. . The essence of steahng is the obtaining our neighbour's goods with- out his intentional consent and without fair market value re- turned. However it may be done, whenever we get from our neighbour something for nothing, without his consent, there is theft.

This commandment requires us, as to our own wordly estate, to practice such industry as will pro- Special Sins and Du- ^j^^ ^^^ ourselves and those dependent on us ties under it. , , . . 1 • n

a decent subsistence — to eschew idleness, which is a species of robbery practiced on the common hive by the drone ; to avoid prodigality ; and to appropriate our own goods in due proportion to their proper uses. The command- ment, as it applies to our neighbour's wealth, forbids robbery, or forcible taking, theft, or taking by stealth, all swindling and getting of property by false pretences ; forestalling and regra- ting in times of scarcity ; wastefulness, tending to the greed for other's wealth, extortion, embezzlement of public wealth, false measures and weights, contracting debts beyond the known ability to pay, eating usury, gambling, infidelity in working for wages, or in the quality of things manufactured for sale, avail- ing oneself of legal advantages for evading obligations mor- ally binding, &c., &c.

But what is the origin of the moral rights of possession ? The sense of mewii and tninn is one of the sioii Whlnce°^ Posses- earliest rational ideas developed, and con- tinues to be one of the strongest. But its ethical origin has been much debated. Some have reasoned that in a state of nature, it arose out of first possession. But is not priority in finding and possessing a natural object, a mere accident? And if men are naturally equal in rights, as these persons always assume, can it be that a mere accident deter- mines the moral right? Some, therefore, desert this theory, and suppose that the right of possession in a state of nature, arises out of the expenditure of some labour on the object pos- sessed. This theory, again, fails to account for many cases, where no labour is bestowed, and yet the right is perfect ; and it is moreover, unreasonable. Jurists incline much to make

4l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

property the mere creature of civil law. This is evidently erro- neous. For the right of property must precede civil society, being one of the foundations on which it is built. These futile surmises illustrate the folly and defect of a philosophy which insists on proceeding upon mere naturalistic grounds. These men leave out God, the most essential, and in a true sense, the most ' natural ' member of the theorem ; and they assume a 'state of nature,' in which no creature ever rightfully existed. No wonder, therefore, that their solution is abortive. Now, the truth is, that there is but one perfect source for a right of prop- erty, creation out of nothing ; and consequently, but one natu- ral proprietor, God the Maker. The only rational solution of the existence of a right of property in man is also the scriptu- ral one, that contained in the second and ninth chapters of Genesis, God's gift of the world and its contents to man, as His tenant. Our individual interests in the gift are, then, based on the golden Rule, and properly regulated in detail by the laws of civil society. This position is vital to our security. For on any lower theory of right, an invasion of property may be plausibly justified whenever the majority persuade themselves that it is most politic.

The question whether all usury, or hire for the use of money, is not unrighteous, was much de- lawful, if Moderate. bated by mediaeval moralists. The usual argument against it was, that money coin, had in it no power of increase. A box of coin, said these Scholastics, is not like a measure of corn, capable of germina- tion and increase ; it is as barren, if left to itself, as the gravel of the Sahara. It is labour only (or nature) which multiplies values. Hence to exact hire for money is taking something for nothing — essential theft. And the legislation of Moses, which prohibited the taking of any usury from brother Hebrews, was misunderstood, and then cited to confirm their conclusion.

If their premises were true, their conclusion would be valid. Money is not, in fact, fruitless, and utterly devoid of a power of reproduction. It is a mere illusion to compare the box of coin to a box of barren gravel. For money is the rep- resentative of values ; it is its purchasing power, and not its metallic constitution as simple matter, which makes it money. Now values are reproductive. Capital has a true power of increase. The multiplication of values is by the combination of capital and labour. If labour fecundates capital, it is equally true that capital arms labour for success. Hence, it is just as fair that capital lent should receive its just hire, as that labour should.

It is interesting to notice that the Bible never commits itself to any erroneous philosophy, no matter how current among men. The Hebrew laws, properly understood, do not condemn all usury as sinful. They permit taking reasonable

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 417

usury from Gentiles, forbid it from their brethren. Nor was this permission as to Gentiles an expression of hostility towards them. The system of Moses harboured no such spirit; but taught the Hebrews to regard Gentiles (except the Amorites, &c.) as neighbours. On the contrary, the taking of a fair hire for money lent, lawful and reasonable in itself, was only forbidden as to their Hebrew brethren, as one instance of that special fraternity and mutual help, which God enjoined on them as pensioners upon His land. The case stands on the same footing with the prohibition to glean the fields, to beat the olive groves, or to take up the sheaf casually dropped on the road. These things were exacted, as special contributions to their more needy brethren. The law of the case may be seen in Exod. xxii : 25 ; Levit. xxv : 36, 37 ; Deut. xxiii : 19, 20 ; Nehem. v : 7 and 8, &c. ; Matt, xxv : 27.

When we take advantage of the urgent necessities of our 8. Buying and Sell- neighbour, in buying or selling, we sin ing under the Law of against both honesty and charity. If our ^1^^"^- neighbour is compelled by his wants to sell

some commodity, for whatever he can get, that fact does not make that commodity worth less than the market price to you who buy it. If he is compelled to have some commodity instantly, whatever it may cost him, that fact does not make it worth more than the market price to you who sell it to him. If therefore, you take advantage of his necessity, to force him to sell you his goods for a less price than you yourself would give, if you could not take this advantage, you rob him of the differ- ence. And it is fraud committed under peculiarly base circum- staeces. For his necessity, instead of arousing your cupidity, ought to excite compassion. Instead of taking advantage of his necessities, you should charitably aid in relieving them. Such measures are excused, I know, by saying that he makes the bargain voluntarily, or that his necessity makes the price which you give him, actually worth to him individually, in his circumstances, what he gave in exchange for it. To these heartless excuses there is one answer, which at a touch, ex- poses their worthlessness, " Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you." How would you like to have your necessity thus abused? And yet, how many men are there who watch, like harpies, for these opportunities to make what they call a good bargain.

It is much to be feared that one chief trait of modern civ- ilization is its fertility in expedients by which theft maybe com- mitted without incurring its social and legal penalties. The Wise Man has said, that •' money answereth all things." Its purchasing power commands all material, and many intellectual values. Hence the desire for money, or avarice, is the protean and all-including affection. Money gratifies ambition, pride, all sensual appetites, in a word, all the appetencies which make 27*

41 8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

up the " carnal mind." Hence the eighth commandment, is, in a pecuHar sense, the perpetual object of invasion and assault in the daily lives of worldly men. With the multiplication of the expedients and combinations for creating wealth, oppor- tunities by which astute men can abstract their fellows' posses- sions without just equivalent, are enormously multiplied. The intricacies of finance, the power of boards of directors sitting in secret to enhance or depreciate the values entrusted to them, the vastness and complication of the business and obligations of the great corporations who are debtors to multitudes of private persons, rendering the credit of the former a question utterly unfathomable to their creditors ; the unscrupulous means for blighting the credit of securities ; and a thousand other arts of like character, enable the adepts to filch from their neighbours vast aggregates of wealth. All these meas- ures are but disguised thefts. And alas ! they constitute a large part of modern methods of business. The sudden accu- mulation of a large speculative fortune can rarely be innocent, and ought not to be the object of any Christian's desire. So, the concealment from the vendor of a recent increase in the value of what he sells, in order to buy it for less than its worth, is an injustice exactly parallel to the concealment of a defect in the thing sold for the purpose of getting more than its worth. Those who plead for this, urge that their special knowledge is their private property, which they have a right to use for their own profit. The answer is, that knowledge affect- ing a joint transaction, like bargain and sale, where two parties' rights are equitably involved, is not private property, and can- not be monopolized without violating the law of love. It should be admitted, that when merchants employ their means and industry to collect useful commercial intelligence, a fair compensation for that use of capital and labour should be a part of the lawful profits of traffic. But when this power of knowledge is pressed beyond that limit, it becomes a breach of the precept. It is to be feared, that the chief practical obsta- cle to the proper exposition of it is the consciousness, that it would ' cut too deep,' and condemn inexorably the larger part of what nominal Christians practice.

SYLLABUS

1. Wliat is the general scope of the 9th Commandment, and what the duties re- quired, and sins forbidden under it? See

Thornwell on Truth. Pascal's Provincial Letters.

2. On what is the duty of speaking truth grounded, and how does its practical importance appear?

3. Define the sin of speaking evil of ones' neighbor, and argue.

4. Is it ever lawful to deceive ?

5. What the scope and meaning of the loth Commandment, and what are the duties required and sins forbidden under it?

6. What evidence of the divine mission of Moses in the character of the Deca- logue ?

7. What doth every sin deserve at God's hands ? See

Anselm, Ctir Dens Homo, pt. i, ch. 21. See, on the wliole, Larger Cat., Qu. 143-152. Ridgeley (same Qu). Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 20-23, and Qu. 26. Green's Lect., 54-58. Calvin's Inst., bk. ii, ch. 8, g 47-51. Hodges' Theol., pt. iii, ch. 19, § 13, 14. Bp. Hopkins on the 9th and loth Commandments.

AX/^E hold that the general scope of the Ninth Command- ment is to enjoin the virtue of Truth, as represented, according to the usual method of the Deca- Comm^an°dment ^'"^^ logu^, under the capital duty of fidelity in public witness-bearing. This precept " requi- reth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbour's good name, especially in witness-bearing." It " forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbour's good name." The duty of veracity is founded on the nature and import- ance of God's will enjoining truth. Truth

of Ve?adty.'^' °^ ^""^ ^^y ^e said to be the using of signs by which we express or assert anything, con- formably to our belief of the real state of the thing spoken of. All the practical concerns of man's life are with the real state of things. Fictitious informations are, cation J UsTfu?"'"'''"'' ^^ "s, naught, or worse than naught. They may fatally betray us into mistake ; they can- not be the grounds of any beneficial or successful action. On the real state of the markets depends the merchant's profits. On the real power of the medicine depend the physician's suc- cess and the sick man's restoration. On the real nature of vegetable laws depends the reward of the farmer's toil. In every conceivable concern of man it is truth, the communi- cation which is in accordance with reality, that is useful. Ac- cordingly our Maker has endued us with a mental appetite of which truth is the natural food. The statement on which we cannot rely gives no pleasure. True, another faculty than the

419

420 SYI.LABUS AND NOTES

understanding, the fancy, finds its appropriate pleasure in fiction. But here also a tribute is paid to the truth ; for in order that the fictitious may give any pleasure to the fancy, even, it must be truth-like.

Now veracity is the observance of truth in our communi- cations. Its importance appears from the fact DerivTd'^"^^" '^"'^^ that almost all man knows is derived from com- munication. The whole value of the state- ments we receive is in their truth. If they are false they are naught, or worse than naught. The usefulness of communi- cated knowledge to us, depends, therefore, wholly on our confi- dence in its truth. Every lie helps to destroy that confidence. Just so far as we perceive lies prevail, so far the value of com- municated knowledge to us is destroyed. Should we reach that state when no trust could be put in the veracity of any fellow-man, all such knowledge would, to us, virtually, cease to exist. But to what a state would this reduce us ? We proudly call the brutes dumb ; indicating that it is man's gift of speech mainly, which separates us from beasts. It is this which enables us to receive facts and ideas besides our own. The wise teach the ignorant. The skill of each generation does not die with it ; but it is communicated to the next. Knowledge is handed down, until our generation finds itself endowed with the accu- mulated experience of all previous ones. It is this which makes our civilization. But if all reliance upon communicated knowledge is destroyed, we are reduced to a state of savage ignorance, but little above that of the higher animals. We should know nothing but what we had ourselves seen and expe- rienced ; because we could trust nothing else. Education would be impossible ; for how can knowledge be communicated when truth is banished ? We must continue to exist in that in- fantile ignorance in which the child begins life, except so far as our own unaided efforts might instruct us, at the cost of suffer- ing and perhaps of destruction. The advance which each indi- vidual made in such a condition, would wholly die with him ; his son must begin life as he did, an ignorant savage, and run the same contracted round of puny, misdirected progress, and in his turn die, carrying all his knowledge to the grave with him. The latest generation would live in the same savage igno- rance with the earliest. Religion would be as impossible as education ; and all its blessings and consolations equally un- known ; for religion cannot exist without trust. Each one of you would be an insulated, helpless, wretch, more completely deprived of society than the gregarious herds. He who deals in falsehood does what in him lies to bring his race to this degraded and miserable state. If all men should be false like him, and in all their communications, this state would be actu- ally reached.

It may be shown in another light that the liar is the enemy

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 421

of God and man, by considering the effect of

dence! "^^'^"^ ^°"^' ^^^ ^^^^ °" °"^ mutual confidence. The

intercourse of human business is but a count- less series of implied engagements. Unless we can trust the fidelity of those whom we must employ, co-operation is at an end. If you cannot trust the postman who contracts to carry your letters, the conductor who guides the vehicle in which, you ride, the pilot who steers your ship, the agent who transacts your business, the cook who engages to dress your food, you can neither write, nor ride, nor sail, nor eat, nor conduct any trade. Government would be at an end, because the ruler could not trust his agents and officers, and his power would be limited to his own presence. In short, if confidence is destroyed then all the bands which unite man with his fellow are loosed : each man must struggle on unaided by his fellows, as though he were the sole forlorn remnant of a perishing race. Confidence is as essential also, to all the social affections which shed happi- ness on the heart, as to the utilities of our outer life. It is the basis of friendship and love. To mistrust is to despise. To trust, to be trusted with unshaken faith, is the charm of domes- tic love.

Were there no truth then, every fellow-man would be your

enemy ; you would be insulated from your Affecdon.°°'^ "P'^™' kind; every social affection would take its

flight from the earth. Man would be reduced to a solitary miserable savage, " whose hand would be against every man and every man's hand against him." Even the ani- mals must, in a certain sense, keep faith with each other, in order to make their gregariousness possible. Even savages must cultivate fidelity to truth within some narrow limits ; or else the extermination of their scanty existence would speedily follow. Indeed the conditions of savage society are sufficient illus- trations of my conclusions; for when you examine into the causes of its barbarism, when you detect wjjy savages are, compared with civilized men, few, poor, wretched, insecure and unfurnished with all the blessings which ameliorate life ; you perceive that it is because falsehood and unrighteousness have made trust, mutual aid, and instruction almost impossible among them. They remain such, only because they cannot trust each other. Savagery is simply sin; and most notably the sin of lying.

Not only is veracity a virtue, but truth is, in a certain sense,

the condition of all other virtues. Hence it Morality.' '''^^'''"''^' is that in many places of the Bible, truth is

almost synonymous with righteousness. The " man that doeth truth" is the man that does his duty. The godly man is " he that speaketh the truth in his heart." To " execute the judgment of truth" is to execute righteous judg- ment. This language is profoundly accurate. The motive of

422 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

every act which has moral quahty must be a reasonable one ; and truth, as we know, is the appointed light of the under- standing. I mean that no man does a truly virtuous act unless he has an intelligent reason for doing it. But how can the mind see a reason unless it finds it in some truth ? Consider, farther, that all the inducements to right actions are in the truth ; but all the inducements to wrong acts are false. Error and sin are kindred evils, as truth and holiness are handmaid and mistress. Truth is the instrument by which the Holy Ghost sanctifies the soul. John xvii : 17. Thus we find its most exalted value in this, that it is the means of redemption for a ruined world. It is as beneficent as falsehood is mischievous. The one is our guide to heaven ; the other leads to hell.

There is a world just such as the liar would make this : where falsehood reigns and where confidence is unknown. There, in its fiery lake, all liars have their part. The ruler of this world is he who " was a liar from the beginning and the Father of it." There, to deceive and be deceived is the uni- versal rule, and therefore mistrust sits brooding over every heart, and scowls in every look. Each one beholds in every other an object of fear and scorn, and feels an equal scorn for himself, because he knows himself as false as they. In the midst of myriads each suffering heart is alone, for it finds no other breast on which it can repose. Hostility and solitude separate each wretch from his fellows, and the only society is the reciprocations of reproaches and injuries. Hell is but the complete and universal reign of falsehood, and the tendency of every lie is to reduce our world to it.

If we weigh these things we shall see the grounds of that practical truth, that the virtue of veracity is the foundation of all right character. Says the French proverb. Qui dit meji- tetir dit atissi larron. And a more infallible proverb asserts that "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."^ (Jas. iii : 2). Hence a sacred regard for truth should be incul- cated on the young especially ; and they should be taught to regard lying as the inlet of all vice and corruption.

In thus illustrating the usefulness and importance of the practice of veracity, I do not intend to rest its obligation on that ground. These facts are merely subordinate to the argu- ment. They illustrate, but do not constitute, the obligation. And even for this use, their chief value is, that they are instan- ces under a general truth, leading us to it. That proposition is, that truth is natural to man's soul. It is the appointed /rt;^ /////;;/ animcB. As the eye craves light, so the mind loves the truth. It is the natural instinct of the mind, undebauched by a sinful experience, to credit what is told it by any rational • fellow- creature ; and it requires the bitter experience of deceptions often repeated to curb this tendency. While we are limited to the sphere of philosophy and natural theology then, we find the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 423

obligation to truth in these fundamental facts, which reveal the will of the Creator as it is impressed on the constitution of the soul. " To those therefore, who would ask : Why am I bound to speak the truth ? I would briefly answer : Because it is the law of our nature : it is the fundamental datum of conscience, a command of God impressed upon the moral structure of the soul." It follows hence that the obligation is universal, and is not conditioned, as Paley intimates, on any implied promise given by the speaker. When we pass from philosophy to rev- elation, we find a still broader and deeper foundation for the obligation to truth, in the nature of that God " who cannot lie," who is the " God of truth," His precepts are the sure and suf- ficient rule of our duty. He has told us that " every liar is abomination in His sight," and has required us to speak truth one to another.

Every right habit of action {consiietudd) implies a right dis- position (habitus) of will. This general law should be enough to convince us of another great fact, which is too often over- looked in ethical discussions of this duty : that there is a virtue of truthfulness, back of the practice of veracity, and the source of it, which we are bound to possess. This is the love of truth for its own sake. The virtue in its last analysis is not a habit qualifying the actions and words, but an active principle quali- fying the will itself Just as in any other class of moral acts, the act is moral simply because of the active principle which is regulative thereof No more is needed than to state the truth. And this truth dissolves, at a touch, the vain assertion that the intelligence acts by its necessary logical laws and therefore irresponsibly to the conscience. On the contary, the intelli- gence acts always under strict responsibility to the conscience"; and man is responsible for his mental beliefs.

The sin of slander, or backbiting, where the assertions of

evil in our neighbour are false, is understood. What ? ^^ ^^^ ^"^' ^^^ malignity is great, as it assails him in a

point very dear to him — his good name — and is usually attended with vile adjuncts of secrecy and treachery. Jas. iii : 6, 7. But it is not so well understood that it is often a sin of evil speaking to repeat true accusations against our neighbour. There are times when the cause of virtue demands that ill-conduct shall be denounced. And when such occasions arise, the virtuous man will not be afraid to speak out. But it is a sin against our erring neighbour to give unnecessary cur- rency to his faults. " Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity." The fact that our neighbour has truly sinned does not place him out- side the pale of charity, nor does it entitle us to inflict on him any unnecessary injury or pain. Moreover, the recital of evil, true or false, has a natural tendency to familiarize the soul with it, to defile the memory and imagination, and to habituate the mind and conscience to wrong. It is, especially to the young,

424 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

a real misfortune to have to hear of that which is morally foul. This mischief should never be causelessly wrought by detailing sins, no matter how true, without necessity.

Many Christian moralists have held that there are inten- 4. Are all Decep- tional deceptions which are not breaches of tions Lies ? Negative the ninth commandment, and are innocent Argument. [^ God's sight. They describe these, as the

cases where the person deceived had no right to know ; and where the result of the deception was righteous and beneficial; as when a robber or murder is misled away from his victim by an innocent deception ; or where a defensive army deceives an invader by strategems. Their arguments are chiefly these ; that the parties deceived, in such cases, being engaged in a wicked design, have no right to the benefits of veracity as between man and man : That the best men, as Joshua, Wash- incrton, &c., when commanders of armies, made adroit use of stratagems ; and the common conscience of mankind approves, and would count it morbid conscience and insane quixotr}^', to refuse such means of defence : That many instances are recorded, of Bible saints as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, &c., who prosperously employed concealment and stratagems, (see for instance, Joshua viii : 3, &c.,) and that there are even cases in which God or Christ seems to do the same, as in the assumption of a human body. Gen. xviii : 2. in the walk to Emmaus, Luke xxiv : 28. They add, also, that the consistent enforcement of the opposite doctrine would many times be suicidal and pre- posterous.

There are however, those who hold that absolutely " no lie

is of the truth." They admit indeed, that it j^ Affirmative Argu- j^ ^ man's privilege, where no right exists to

demand information of him, to keep silence, or use concealment. But they assert that, if he employs any signs by which it is usually understood information is conveyed, he must employ them absolutely according to reality ; and that in no case can he intentionally produce a deception, without the sin of lying. They argue in general, that the opposite license proceeds upon a utilitarian theory of obligation. But this theory is false, and as no finite mind can correctly judge the whole utility or hurtfulness of a given declaration in its ulterior consequences, no practical basis or rule of obligation would be left at all To the instances of deception in war, by great patriots, and their approval by the world, they reply, that good men are imperfect, and commit errors ; and that the pub- lic conscience is unhealthy. To the instances of Bible-saints, they say with justice, that often the errors of good men are recorded for our instruction, when they are by no means sanc- tioned. As to the instances claimed, from the acts of the Mes- siah, concealment is not deception ; His appearance in human form, without at first disclosing His divinity, was not a suggestio

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 42$

falsi, but only a concealment of His nature until the suitable time. So, His seeming to design a journey farther than Emmaus was a mere question propounded to the disciples. As to the inconveniences of absolute truth, sometimes extreme, they point to the obligations laid upon the martyrs, and remind us, that it is no rare thing for Christ to require of us obedience rather than life. In fine, they urge that on any other ground than theirs, no tenable or consistent rule remains ; and we have a mere ' point of honour ' requiring us to speak truth under cer- tain contingencies, instead of a fixed rule of moral obligation.

It must be confessed, that the reasons of the latter party are more honourable to the divine authority, and more elevating and safe, than those of the former. The replies given to a part of their arguments are also valid. I would add that it is of perilous tendency and obvi- ously erroneous, to represent one's obligation to speak truth as only correlated to the hearer's right to receive a true communi- cation. Man could never be safely trusted to judge for himself when his fellow man had that right. Indeed, on that basis, human declarations v.'ould be practically worthless ; for the hearer must always remember that the speaker's word can only be accepted as conveying truth, provided he secretly judges the hearer to be entitled to it ; and of this proviso there can be no assurance not encumbered with the same fatal condition. Again, it is very far from being a general truth, that our duties are only corelated to the rights of their objects. Thus, I may be under a high obligation (to God) to bestow alms on my undeserving enemy. And this suggests the still stronger answer; that God, and not the hearer, is the true object on whom any duty of veracity terminates. God always has a right to expect truth of me, however unworthy the person to whom I speak.

Yet the sober mind cannot but feel that there is an extreme, to which the higher view cannot be pushed. I presume that no man would feel himself guilty for deceiving a mad dog in order to destroy him, or for m.isleading an assassin from his victim, when helpless otherwise, to prevent murder. But it is more im- portant to say, that, in at least a few cases, as in Joshua viii : 2, God Himself authorized a designed deception for the purpose of punishing the guilty. As His authorizing Joshua to exter- minate the Amorites proves that all killing is not murder, so, does not His authorizing him to deceive them prove that all ■deception is not lying? Hence, I would offer, with diffidence, another statement of the matter, which may be found to con- tain the reconciliation of the difficulty. Under what circum- stances is killing by man no murder ? Is not human life sacred, and the property of the Maker alone ? The law answers : Man may kill, when the guilty life is forfeited to God, and He author- izes man to destroy it, as His agent. So, I conceive, extreme

426 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

purposes of aggression, unjust and malignant, and aiming at our very existence, constitute a forfeiture of rights for the guilty assailant. During the dominancy of his active malice, they dehumanize him as to his intended victim : his life is for- feited to the superior right of self-defence. That right emerges, and the man attacked innocently slays the assailant. By the rule that the greater includes the less, may he not also deceive him for a righteous purpose ? One advantage of this view is, that it gives this right of deception only in the extreme case, where life is maliciously assailed. And the argument is not the same we discarded, which made the duty of veracity correlative only to the hearer's right to truth. For my plea is ; this assail- ant not only has no right to it, he is out of the category of beings to whom truth is relevant, for the time. He is not a rational man, but a brute. It may be asked with much force : has this outlaw for the time being, a right to truth, after he has forfeited the right to existence ? Does not the greater forfeiture include the less ? Is he not, pro tempore, in the category of a beast of prey ? But the moment he is disabled from aggres- sion, or turns to a better mind, his rights to truth revive, as do his claims on our charity and forbearance. Hence, while the good man will righteously deceive his invading enemy with stratagems, the moment a flag of truce appears, or his enemy is disabled and captured, he is bound to act with as perfect sin- cerity as towards his bosom friend. I would add, in guarding this concession, that if an innocent man makes a vow, promise, or engagement to his unrighteous assailant, under whatever violent threat, or other inducement, he is bound, to the faithful perform- ance of that engagement, unless the thing promised is sin per se. For the engagement was voluntary ; he had the option of choosing to make it or endure the threatened evil. The good man is one who " sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." Ps. XV : 4.

Rome, as we saw, having suppressed the 2nd Command- ment, divides the loth in order to make out xo?hCotmaSiSl°r' the requisite number. Her 9th Command- ment is, " Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- bor's house ;" and her loth, " Neither shalt thou desire his wife," &c. Her plea is, that houses are typical of property ; and wives of those things which excite sensual desire. The 9th Commandment, therefore forbids covetousness ; the loth, lust and appetite. But unfortunately, the " ox and ass," obvious "property" are in the latter part; and in Deut. v : 21, where Moses recites the Decalogue literally, he puts the wife first, and the property second. There is no basis for the distinction. For what is property craved by sinners ? Only for its instru- mentality to satisfy some appetite or sensual desire. The general unity of the subject, besides, proves that it was one command.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 42/

It may be said, in brief, that this command finds the key- note of its exposition in the text : " Keep ^^ ^°^^' thy heart with all diligence ; for out of it are

the issues of life." The five commands of the second table cut off the streams of transgression ; this deals with the fountain head. The others forbid wrong volitions ; this forbids concu- piscence, as tending thereto. In the iQth Commandment, then, we have the crowning spirituality of the Law ; thus making it complete, and every way worthy of God, and adapted to man as a rational free agent.

In closing this subject I would offer two remarks. The first is upon the admirable comprehension,

6. Decalogue only ^isdom, and method of the Decalogue. We

irom God. ' . . °

have here ten smiple and brief precepts, each one commending itself to the natural conscience of the most unlearned, simple in word, few in number, unostentatious in arrangement. When we first look at them, we are inclined to think that, while they are very true and good, there is nothing very wonderful ; that they are obvious things which any good man might utter, aud to a much greater number than ten. But when we examine them in detail, we find that they are the heads of all the branches of man's duty, arranged with the most logical order, presenting nothing superfluous, and yet, with all their brevity, omitting nothing of all the vast circle of human duty! How clear their purity and justice! How amazing their comprehension ! What completeness ! Let human ingenuity hunt out some branch of human duty which is omitted. It cannot. In these ten words, we have a system of morality more wise and complete than human wisdom ever de- vised. Now, we ask, whence did Moses get these ten words ? A man of an unlearned and pastoral race, educated in the learned follies of Egypt, whose theology and morals, as they are revealed to us by Herodotus and the modern decypherers of their monuments, show an impurity and puerility utterly oppo- site to the Bible, goes into a waste desert, and after forty years, comes forth with this strangely wise and perfect law ! Whence did he get it? There is but one rational account — that given by the Bible — that it was written for him by the finger of God. Unless Moses was an inspired man, then he has produced a miracle of wisdom more incredible than all the difficulties of inspiration.

Our Catechism, while recognizing the greater gravity of some sins than others, by reason of their

7. What does every aggravations, teaches us that, "Every sin

bin Deserve. ot> , ^ ,, 1 1 • 1 •

deserveth God s wrath and curse, both in this

life and that which is to come." The exceeding demerit of sin,

and its desert of eternal and grievous punishment is a doctrine

which meets with obstinate resistance from sinners. It is urged

that to make the desert of any sin such is to revive the old:

428 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Stoic absurdity, of the equality of all sins ; for if the lesser sin is punished eternally, and so infinitely, the greater cannot be punished more. The answer is, that infinities are by no means all equal ; as we have shown.

To clear this awful truth of the desert of sin, from the cavils of unbelief, I would observe, first, that sinful men are in a most unlikely attitude to judge correctly between themselves and God, in this matter. They naturally desire to break the law. Our emotions always blind the judgment to the objects which are opposed to their current. They are condemned by the law of God, which fact produces a natural jealousy of it. They have their moral judgments brutified by the universal habitude and example of sinning, amidst which they live. It would be almost a miracle, if there were not, under these cir- cumstances, a perversion of the moral judgments here.

But affirmatively the ill-desert of sin is infinite, because of

the excellence, universality, and practical

Grounds. ^^j^^ ^^ ^j^^ j^^^ broken by it. Because of

the natural mischievousness of sin to the sinner himself ; as was illustrated when I spoke of Adam's first transgression. Because of the Majesty and perfections of the Law-giver assailed by transgression. Because sin is committed against mercies and blessings so great. Because it violates so perfect a title to our services, that of creation out of nothing. And last, because it is so continually multiplied by transgressions.

Men deny the demerit and guilt of sin,' because they are so in the habit of attempting to measure transgression as the civil magistrate does, insulated from all its attendants and sequels. Does the court, for instance, indict a man for murder ? The act is considered by itself, and the court does not concern itself with antecedent character, or with results, save as they throw light on the intention or evidence. Now men mislead them- selves by these examples, as though an omniscient God could, or would judge sins against himself in this partial, fragmentary way. In denying the gravity of sin against God, they seem to have before them some such case as this : Here is one actual sin committed by a man, which God is to judge, as expressive of no moral state preexisting in the man ; as destined to breed no repetitions, as exercising no influence to form a vicious habit in the agent's soul, and as carrying no consequence into his own immortal character or those of his fellows. The caviller seems to think the question is : Has God declared a single act, thus insulated, by itself worthy of eternal penalty? I reply, that neither the caviller nor I know anything of that question. For in fact, God can never have such a case to judge, because it can never arise. Every case which He has to judge is that of a sinner, not of a sin : and in weighing any one act, the omnis- cient mind will, of course, look at it as it really occurs, with all its antecedents, connections, and consequences. Is it an oath ?

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 429

God sees in it, first, a specific breach of the 3d Commandment ; then, an expression of pre-existent sentiments of wilfulness, irreverence, levity or malice, in the profane man : then thirdly, an evil influence on spectators, to be propagated, unless grace intervene, forever : fourth, a confirming influence, intensifying the wicked temper and habit ; and last, a natural tendency involving a series of increasing profanities forever. In a word, God, as final and omniscient judge, has to judge each sinner as a concrete whole, and each transgression as index, part, and cause, as well as fruit, of a disease of sin, a deadly, spiritual eat-, ing cancer, whose tendency is to involve an immense evil, eternal death. Thus judged, sin is an infinite evil, and deserves an eternal penalty. One reason why God punishes forever is, that the culprit sins forever. God's point of view is, that this ever-^ lasting series of sins is the fruit of the first rebellion.

SYLLABUS

1. What the Scriptural uses of the terms ^1'^3 and Sm^/^kt/? What the theological uses of the terms, 'Covenant of • ; Redemption,' 'Covenant of Grace'? See

Conf. of Faith, ch. 7. Sh. Cat., Qu. 20. Larger Cat., Qu., 31. Lexicons, sud vocibiis. Sampson on Heb., ix ; 16. Southern Presb. Rev., Jan., 1876. Hodge's Theol., Vol. ii, ch. 2 of pt. ii. Hill's Div., bk. v, ch. 5, \ i. Tur- rettin, Loc. xii, Qu. I. Dick. Lect. 48.

2. Prove the existence of a Covenant of Redemption. How related to the Cov- enant of Grace, and the L^iaOijKaL? See

Turrettin, Loc. xii, Qu. 2. Dick, Lect. 48. Hodge as above. Witsius, bk. ii, ch. 2. - 3. Who are the original parties to the Covenant of Redemption ? Their motives ? for whom is Christ surety ? See same authorities.

4. What the conditions stipulated between the Parties ? Is any condition required of the believer ? What ? Faith ? or also repentance ?

Dick, Lect. 48, 49. Hodge as above. Turrettin, Qu. 3 and 2.

5. What is the date and duration of the Covenant ? Explain, then, the terms- "new" and "old" in Heb. viii : 8, or xii : 24.

Turrettin and Dick as above. Hodge, Com. on I Cor. xv : 24-28. See, on. the whole, Witsius, bk. ii, ch. 2, 3.

/^OD having created man upright, and he having sought out ^-^ many iiwentions, and thus fallen into sin ; our next

inquiry must be into the remedy which God's Go^d'^ReTec^y"'''"" love and mercy found for this fall. This

remedy, in its exhibition, was of course sub- sequent to the ruin ; but when we consider it in its inception in the Divine mind, we must go back into the recesses of a past eternity. God ever foreknew all things ; and all His works,, unto the end, are according to His original, eternal plan. Con- ceiving of God's eternal decree then in parts, (the only mode

43^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of conception of it competent to our finite minds,) we must consider that part of His plan formed from eternity, which was imphed in that other part of the same plan whereby He pur- posed to permit man's fall and ruin. This remedial part of God's decree is the thing which the more recent Calvinistic divines term the Covenant of Grace — e. g., Dick.

When it is thus considered, as a part of the Decree, we

^, . . are enabled to condense much of the discus-

Identical with De- • 1 r • -i- • 1 ^1

cree. sion and prooi concerning it, given by the

theologians ; and to say in brief: that being such, the Covenant of Grace must of course possess those gen- eral properties which we asserted of the Decree ; and for the same reasons, viz., eternity, immutability, wisdom, freeness, absoluteness, graciousness.

When we come to the Scriptures, we find a frequent use of the words rendered in our English version, ' Covenant,' ' Tes- tament,' applied to transactions of God with men, through their Surety, Jesus Christ. Before we can proceed farther in the connected evolution of the subject, the proper meaning of

these terms must be examined ; ^"'12) ocad^-^x/j. The former

of these words, both by its etymology and usage, is shown to mean * covenant,' or ' agreement ; ' being often used to express theologically, God's covenants with man, and naturally, compacts between individuals. There are also cases in which it means an arrangement or disposition of matters determined on. Exod. xxxiv : 28 ; Jer. xxxiii : 20. It must be remarked, that the word currently used by the Sept. to render this, is oiaiJrf/:/]. This fact would naturally lead us to attribute to it in the New Testament, the same meaning of disposition or cove- nant. It is admitted that the meaning so often given to it by our English version of ' testament,' (will,) is the primary ety- mological meaning in classic Greek. But there is only one case, (Heb. ix : 16,) where that meaning is supportable. Thus, when Christ is said by the English version to be " a surety of a better testament," (Heb. vii : 22,) there is an obvious incon- gruity between the office and the document. Wills do not have sureties. When the same version says, (i Cor. xi : 25,)- " This is my blood of the New Testament," the words, y-aivr^z, oiddyfATiz^ imply the Old, to which the character of a testament is inappropriate. But in Heb. ix : 16, 17, the meaning of" Tes- tament" is to be retained, (against McKnight, Hill and others.) For, if their rendering be attempted, making the passage allusive to a covenant ratified by an animal sacrifice, three insuperable critical difficulties arise, that if dco.&rjxrj means covenant, bcad-kfitvov should mean the " covenanter," i. e., God the Father, (Christ being the ratifying sacrifice.) But the Father did not die ; that vbxoo:; cannot be properly used to describe dead ani- mals sacrificed : and that the passage would then be made to

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 43 1

assert too much : for it is not universally true, that compacts were only of force anciently, after the death of a sacrifice to solemnize them. (See Sampson's Com. in loco?) Hence we assert that the statement of our Confession of Faith is substan- tially correct, that the Scripture does set forth the dispensa- tion of God's grace to man under the idea of " a testament; " though perhaps not " often," as is said there. Their assertion refers to the English version.

The terms are used then, in their general or theological sense, ist, by Theologians, and probably by Scripture, (Hos. vi : 7,) for the Covenant of works with Adam. 2nd, for the Abrahamic dispensation. 3rd, for the Mosaic dispensation. 4th, for the new or Christian dispensation. (Not covenants, but dispensations ; for we shall show that there is only one cov- enant, besides that of works.)

If there is any gospel remedy for sin, then there must have been, from eternity, such a remedial plan in a&ve''nanlf '^'''' the Divine mind. But the question is, was this part of the eternal decree, in any proper sense a covenant ? Has it properly the form of an eternal compact between persons of the Trinity? This is purely a question of Revelation, to be decided not so much by finding the words, covenant, compact, agreement, applied to it in Scrip- ture, as the substance of the thing asserted. Calvinists hold that in the one, eternal decree of the Trinity, which is one in essence and attributes, and harmonious in will and thought, this remedial purpose (or part of the plan) has from eternity held the form of a concert or agreement between the Father and the Son, for the redemption of believers. But here we must . carefully avoid confusing the subject, by giving to this immanent transaction of the Trinity all the technical features of a " covenant." Thus some divines have erred, especially of the Cocceian school. Obviously, we must not conceive of it, as though the one party produced in the other a willingness to do what he had not previously purposed, by exhibiting a certain reward or compensation, not* before exhibited. Nor must we conceive that the second party produces, by his fulfilment of the conditions, a fixed purpose to bestow the given compensa- tion, the purpose to do so having been hitherto uncertain. Nor, in a word, that there is any contingency on either hand, holding the purposes of either party suspended in doubt on the promisings or doings of the other party. But it has always been certain from eternity, that the conditions would be per- formed ; and the consequent reward would be bestowed, because there has always been an ineffable and perfect accord in the persons of the Trinity, on those points : an accord pos- sessing all the absoluteness of the other parts of the decree. Our limited understandings, of course, cannot fully understand the actings of the divine, triune spirit ; seeing its constitution

432 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

is inscrutable to us. This is perhaps as near as we, can come to the conception designed to be given us.

The Scriptural proof of such an immanent, eternal trans- Scriptural Proofs of action between the Father and Son, is the a Covenant of Re- following : First. Inferentially, Eternal life demption. ^y^g j^q^- o^ily purposed to be bestowed, but,

" promised, before the world began " — Tit. i : 2. To whom ? for man did not yet exist ? To Christ, for believers. Compare Eph. i : 4. Again : Christ is clearly implied to bear a federal relationship ; as in i Cor. xv : 22, 47,45 ; Rom. v : 17, 18. Our first federal head entered into covenant on our behalf; we infer that our second has ; He would else not fulfill the idea of a fed- eral person at all. Again : Christ is expressly called the Surety of a oca&r^xTj. Heb. vii ; 22. But a surety is one who volun- tarily enters under the obligations of a compact on behalf of anoiher. Many other passages would ground a similar infer- ence ; the student has now had sufficient examples how to use them. Note all conditional promises : To believers, to Christ. These are of nature of covenants.

Second. Many express passages describe (not always in the use of word covenant et similia, but in substance) such an eternal agreement. See Is. xlii : 6, xlix : 8 ; Mai. iii : i ; espe- cially Ps. xl : 7, 8, as quoted by Heb, x ; 5. This covenant of Christ is unfolded by other Scriptures under the specific heads of His three offices — e. g., Prophetic. Is. Ixi : i, 2. Priestly. Isaiah, liii : lo, ii ; Ps. ex : 4 ; John, x : 17, 18. Kingly. Ps. ii : 7, 8, ex : 6 ; Luke, xxii : 29, &c. Zech. vi : 13. Witsius somewhat fancifully argues also, that Christ's partaking of the Sacraments of the Old Testament could only have been to seal His covenant of redemption with His Father.

2. I hold that this subject cannot be treated intelligibly without distinguishing the covenant existing from eternity between the Father and Son, from that Gospel promise of sal- vation on terms of true faith offered to sinners through Christ. Many of our divines have agreed to retain this distinction, and to name the former covenant, for convenience' sake, the " Cov- enant of Redemption," while they call the Gospel promise to believers, " Covenant of Grace." To these I heartily accede. The Covenant of Redemption between the Father and Son, I hold to be the real covenant transaction, being a free and optional compact between two equals, containing a stipulation which turns on a proper, causative condition, and bearing no relation to time, as it includes no mutable contingency or con- dition dependent on the uncertain will of creatures. The Cov- enant of Grace (so called) is a dispensation of promise to man,, arising out of and dependent on the Covenant of Redemption. Dr. John Dick seems to use the phrase Covenant of Grace, in a sense comprehensive of both transactions, and to assert that there is no use for the distinction. Turrettin, Witsius, and our

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 433

Confession employ the same phrase in the sense of the Gospel promise to believing sinners, made through Christ as surety. See Confession ch. vii : § 3 ; Shorter Catechism qu. 20. It is true that the Larger Catechism, qn. 31, verges nearer to the dis- tinction and the recognition of a prior Covenant of Redemp- tion with Christ saying : ** This Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him, &c."

Now, I repeat, the distinction which Dick repudiates, and which so many others obscure, is essential. It is true that the covenant with believing men is the consequence and sequel of that eternally made with Christ ; and that the promises published in the former are the fruit of Christ's action in fulfilling the latter. In that sense the transactions are intimately connected. But the value and necessity of the distinction are easily evinced, against Dr. Dick, by such questions as these : Is Christ a party to the Covenant of Grace ? Or is man the party of the second part ? Here Dr. Dick must be fatally embar- rassed. In the Covenant of Grace with man, Christ is not party, but surety — True: But unless there is some party to the transaction less mutable, feeble and guilty than believing sin- ners, man's prospect of deliverance is gloomy indeed ! Yet it seems inconsistent to make the same Person both principal party and surety in the same transaction ! I can give the solu- tion, which Dick could not : In the eternal Covenant of Redemption Christ is principal party : in the Covenant of Grace, He is surety. Again : Is the Covenant conditioned or unconditioned ? Here also, Dick is fatally entangled. Will he say it is conditioned, and thus ascribe to the sinner's faith an efficient merit ? Or will he say it is unconditioned : and thus defraud us of hope with an unbought redemption? I can answer : The Covenant of Redemption was conditioned, on Christ's meritorious woik. The Covenant of Grace is uncon- ditioned : its benefits are offered to believers without price.

To my view Turrettin has given his virtual support, though in a rather inconsistent fashion. After beginning with the one definition, of a Covenant of Grace, eternal and yet made with man in a surety, in Qu. ii § 12, he raises the question whether this Covenant of Grace was made by the Father with Christ as the other contracting party (for man's benefit) ; or whether it is made with the body of believers as the second party, in Christ as a '^ Pars Medial His answer is, that " the debate is superfluous : because the thing comes to the same." But he adds, just after ; " Cerium est duplex hie pactum neces- sario attendendwn esse vel unius ejusdemque pacti duas partes et gradus. Prius pactum est quod inter Patrem et Filium inter- cedit ad opus redeinptionis exequendum. Posterius est, quod Dcus cum elcctis in Christo contrahit. Witsius is more lucid, and so more consistent. After stating that God's Cove- nant of Grace with man is the remedy for the broken Covenart 28* . •

434

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of Works, he pauses, and begins his 2nd chapter. ^^ De pacte Dei Patris et Filii."

Ut Foederis GraticE natma pcnititis perspecta sit, duo im- primis distincte consideranda sunt. I. Pactum, quod inter Deum Patrem et Mediatorem Christum intercedit. II. Testamentaria ilia Dispositio q7ia Deus salutem cBternam electis, et omnia eo pertinentia immutabili fccdere addicit. Prior Conventio Dei C7im Mediatore est. Posterior Dei cum Electis. Haec illam supponit, et in illafundatur!'

The original parties to the Covenant of Redemption are the Father and the Son. It is plausibly to AeSSfant^''"^'' "^ged by Dick, that in this transaction, the Father acted not only tor Himself, as one person of the Trinity, but for the whole Godhead, as represen- tative of the offended majesty of the three persons equally. His reason is, that all the persons being similar in attributes and dignity, must be conceived of as all alike offended by man's sin and guilt ; and alike demanding the reconciling interven- tion of a Daysman ; the Holy Ghost as much as the Father. It must be confessed that Dick cannot present any scriptural, direct proof of this view; but it seems reasonable. The Father on the one part, then, acts as the representative of the God- head ; Christ as the representative of the elect. The question is raised by Dick : Is Christ surety for man to God only, or for God also to believers ? He answers, not for God to believers ; because this is derogatory to God, as implying that His fidelity and mercy need or admit of any higher warrant than His own word. (But see Turretin, Loc. cit. § i6.) Does not God make known His fidelity as a promiser of pardon and life, and His mercy, precisely through this surety, as the prophet of the Covenant? Would man be any otherwise warranted to hope for any mercy ? Further, the fact that God's goodness to us needs and admits of any certifying by a surety, results from nothing discreditable to God, but from something discreditable to us — our guilty mistrust. That God, who deserves to be trusted on His mere word, should condescend to give us warranty of His fidelity in the messsage, death and sacraments of His Son ; this is His amazing grace and goodness. (See i Tim. i : i6.) And are not the sacraments seals ? Does not Christ in them act as surety for God to us ?

To the question whether believers are also parties in the Covenant of Grace, no better answer can be given than that of Turrettin, § I2. In the eternal sense of the Covenant, they were not parties ; in the sense of its exhibitions in time, they are parties ; i. e., in their surety.

The Covenant of Redemption being, as regards the Father

and the Son, but a part of the single Decree,

^ The Covenant Eter- ^^^^ ^^ ^^ eternal as that Decree. It began

in the counsels of a past eternity : and in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 435

one sense, its administration will extend (if not in the media- torial offices of the Surety, at least in the communications of grace,) to a future eternity. In proof of its eternity, see Heb. xiii : 20 ; i Pet. i : 20. Hence the Covenant can only be one ; and therefore it can only be spoken of as " first," " second " (e. g., Heb. viii : 7,) or " old," " new," (as Heb. viii : 8 ; xii : 24,) with reference to its forms of manifestation.

Having considered the Godhead (represented in the Father,)

^, . r r- J . and Christ, as the original parties to this Motives of God to ' • . n

the Covenant. The covenant, the question naturally arises : Father not persuaded What motive prompted them to this dispen- by the Son to it. ^^^-^^^ of amazing love and mercy? The

only consistent answer is : their own will, moved by their own intrinsic benevolence, compassion and other attributes. To this agree all the passages of Scripture which describe God's electing love as free and unprocured by anything in man ; (Rom. ix : 11, 16,) because our election is but the embracing of us in the Covenant of Grace. Eph. 1:4. This is equally sub- stantiated by the argument that God could not be moved by foreseen good in us, to embrace us in this covenant; because the only foreseen good in us was that which was to result from the administration of the grace of that very covenant. It can- not be said that man's misery was more than the occasion of God's purpose in forming this Covenant of Grace; for if we supposed it the procuring, or efficient cause, the misery of non-elect men and angels ought equally to have procured a Covenant of Grace towards them also.

Some have misrepresented the truth hereupon by teaching that Christ's undertaking to satisfy the law in man's stead is the procuring cause of God's purpose of mercy towards man. The error of this view is evident from this consideration, that, then, Christ would be originally more benevolent and merciful than the Father. But they are equal and harmonious originally, in this, as in all other excellencies. The true statement is, that Christ's promise of a vicarious righteousness was necessary to enable the Father's purpose of mercy to be effectuated consis- tently with other attributes — that purpose being precisely as original and uncaused in the Father as in the Son.

Dick (Lee. 49,) has very happily simplified the question, , ■, ^ " What were the conditions bargained by by Christ— just what the Son to the Godhead, on behalf of His man owed. ist. Obedi- people?" by considering Him as placed pre- ^"^^" . cisely in His people's room and stead. He

bargained to do precisely what they should have done, to supply precisely " their lack of service." The intrinsic righteousness of the rules imposed on man in the Covenant of Works, as being precisely what they ought to have been ; and the immutability of God's nature, show that whoever came forward to be their surety, must expect to have to undertake precisely what was

436 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

incumbent on them in that covenant. The first part of this obHgation was to a Hfe of perfect obedience. This Hfe Christ rendered. (See, e. g., Matt, xvii.: 5). A class of theologians has rejected the idea that Christ's active obedience was vicari- ous, and is imputed to His people. While this question will come up more naturally when we discuss the subjects of Satis- faction and Justification, we may briefly remark of it now, that the consideration above offered is obviously in favour of the Calvinistic view. Besides ; when the Mess'ah is represented as saying, "A body hast thou prepared me," &c., (Ps. xl : 6, 8, quoted ; Heb. x : 5, 10,) it is surely a very contracted and per- verse interpretation, to suppose that He was clothed with humanity only with reference to one and the last act of His humanity ; and that the general phrase, " I come to do Thy will," is to be understood only of the single act of offering His flesh. (See also Gal. iv : 4 and 5).

But man, while still bound to perpetual obedience, has

already come under penalty, by failing to 2nd. Penalty. j-.. tt c t u -5^

•' render it. Hence, our Surety bargamed to

bear that penalty in His people's stead. This cannot be more clearly stated than in the language of Is. liii : 5, 6; 2 Cor. v : 21. Some have supposed that there is an incompatibility between the first and second condition : that if the penalty for a neglected obedience is paid, law has no longer any claim for that obedience. This represents the relation between the law and penalty, erroneously. God does not accept the penalty as an equivalent for obedience, in the sense that either the one or the other satisfies the demands of the Law and of His nature, alike well. His relation to His rational creatures demands of them, by an inevitable and perpetual demand, perfect obedi- ence : and if that fails, penalty also. But waiving this, does not the believer (having paid for his past delinquency by his surety,) owe a perpetual and perfect obedience for the future ? And can he render it in the flesh ? Hence his surety must Tender it for him, as well as pay the penalty.

In the third place, we may say scripturally, that Christ bar- gained, among all other compliances with His Mediator^^ °^''' °^ Father's will, to do as Mediator, all those things pertaining to His prophetic and kingly offices, necessary on His part, to the salvation of the elect. He undertook their instruction, guidance, protection and conquest to Himself Weigh John xvii : 12-14, ^oi" instance, where our Saviour speaks of His agency in instructing and guiding His disciples as of a fulfilled compact. (See also, Ps. xxii : 22).

Passing now to the other side of the compact, we may say

that the Godhead, represented in the Father,

b ^the Father ^^^^^^^ engaged on His side, to the Son, to clothe

Him with humanity for the fulfilment of His

task, (Ps. xl : 6,) and to endue Christ plenteously with gifts and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 43/

graces therefor, (Is. xlix : 2 ; Ixi : 1,2,) to uphold Him under His heavy task, (Is. xKi : I-/,) to give Him an elect seed as the sure reward of His labours, (Is. xlix : 6 ; liii : 10,) and to bestow His royal exaltation, with all its features of glory. (Ps. ii : 6 ; Phil, ii : 9, 10). As there is a secondary sense, in which God, in unfolding His eternal Covenant of Grace, bargains with man, so there is a sense in which there are terms proposed between God and believers also. It may be remarked in general, that there is a sense in which a part of the benefits promised to Christ are promised through Him also to His people; and a part of the blessings covenanted to them, are honours and rewards to Him. Thus His mediatorial graces are their gain ; and their redemption is His glory. Hence, this division between benefits covenanted to His people, and those covenanted to Christ, cannot be sharply carried out.

When we consider the covenant as between God and believers, however, it is evident that there dittnReqXedolMen' are terms bargained between them. These may be found briefly expressed in the words so often repeated, and obviously intended to be so significant in Scriptures ; Gen. xvii : 7 ; Jer. xxxi : 33 ; Rev. xxi : 3 ; "I will be their God, and they shall be My people." In this cove- nant God briefly bargains, on His part, to be reconciled to be- lievers, and to communicate Himself to them as their guide, light, consolation, and chief good. They, on their part, are held bound to the correlative reconciliation, grounding their weapons of rebellion and exercising the spirit of adoption, to a life of self-consecration and obedience,- to separation from the world of His enemies, and conformity of heart and life to God's will. It is true, that the transaction of Gen. 17th is rather ecclesiastical than spiritual ; but the spiritual is always included and represented in the outward.

The full and blessed significance of this formula will not be apprehended, unless we consider that it is not used in Scrip- ture once, but as often as the covenant of grace proposed or renewed. Compare not only Gen. xvii : 7, 8, but Exod. xx : 2 ; xxix: 45 ; Deut. v : 2, 3, 6 ; Jer. xxiv : 7 ; xxx : 22 ; xxxi: 33 ; Ezek. xi : 20 ; Zech. xiii : 9. And in tjie New Testament, 2 Cor. vi : 16 ; Heb. 8, 10, and Rev. xxi : 3. We thus see from this emphatic repetition, that these words are the summary of all the blessings and duties arising out of the gospel relation. They are common to both dispensations. They re-appear as a grand " refrain," whenever the prophets sing most triumphantly the blessings of the covenant : until we hear them for the last time as the song of the ransomed and glorified Church. This relation thus expressed is to be understood then ; not as the general one of Creator and creature, sovereign proprietor and servant ; but as the special and gracious relation established in the Mediator by the Gospel. In it God promises to be to

438 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

believers all that is implied in their redemption and eternal adoption ; while the believer is held bound to all that is im- plied in faith and repentance.

The question then arises, whether all the graces and duties

of the Christian life may be accounted as

Faith the only Con- conditions of the Covenant of Grace. If so,

dition. . . 11- 1 ^

is it not reduced again to another Covenant of Works ? The answer is, that it is only in a very slight, and improper sense, the Christian's holy life can be called a con- dition of his share in grace — only as in the order of sequence it is true that a holy life on earth must precede a complete re- demption in heaven. .So far is it from being true that this holy life is in any sense a meritorious condition of receiving grace, or a procuring cause ; it is itself the fruit and result of grace. But when we examine more minutely the account of that gra- cious transaction in the Scriptures shadowed forth in the eccle- siastical transaction of Gen. 17th, and stated first more simply in Gen. 15th, we find that Abraham's faith only was imputed to him for righteousness. Gen. xv : 6 ; Rom. iv : 9, 10, &c. This effectually explains the matter. The argument in favour of the position we have assumed, is sufficiently strengthened by add- ing that all graces and holy living are everywhere spoken of by God, and sought by Bible saints in prayer, as God's gifts bestowed as the fruit of the Covenant of Grace. Citations are needless.

The question has been keenly agitated between Calvinists,

whether Faith itself should be spoken of as eriy^cIued'a'cJndS" ^ condition of the covenant. One party has

denied it, because they supposed that the language which represented man as performing a condition of his own salvation would make an inlet for human merit. But it is most manifest that there is a sense in which Faith is the con- dition, in all such passages as John iii : 16 ; Acts viii : 37 ; John xi : 26 ; Mark xvi : 16. No human wit can evade the fact, that here God proposes to man a something for him to do, which, if done, will secure redemption ; if neglected, will ensure damna- tion— and that something is in one sense a condition. But of what kind? Paul everywhere contrasts the condition of works, and the condition of faith. This contrast will be suf- ficiently established, and all danger of human merits being intruded will be obviated, if it be observed that Faith is only the appointed instrument for receiving free grace purchased by our Surety. It owes its organic virtue as such, to God's mere appointment, not to the virtue of its own nature. In the Cove- nant of Works, the fulfilment of the condition on man's part earned the result, justification by its proper moral merit. In the Covenant of Grace, the condition has no moral merit to earn the promised grace, being merely an act of receptivity. In the Covenant of Works, man was required to fulfil the condition in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 439

his own strength. In the Covenant of Grace, strength is given to him to beheve, from God,

The question now remains, whether, in this instrumental

sense, any thing else besides faith is a condi-

No other Condition. ^-^^^ ^f ^^^ Covenant of Grace. (See Cat

Evasions. _ \ ,. n • 11 r • 1 1 ^ ,, -T-T

yues. 33). Received by laith alone. Ihere are two evasions : one, that which makes Repentance a condi- tion along with faith, Luke xiii : 3 ; Acts ii : 38, &c. Contrast with Jno. iii : 16-18 ; Acts xvi : 30, 31. The other is the one common to Papists, {ineritum congruimt of Jides forvtata,) some classes of New England Divines (justification by faith appre- hended as the generative principle of holiness, and inclusive thereof,) and the Campbellites, (justification by the " obedience of faith," viz: immersion). Here is a subtile inlet for works. These perversions have all this common mark, that they desert the scriptural doctrine, which makes faith the instrument of justification solely through its receptive agency, and they claim for faith a purchasing power, or merit of the result. Recurring to the former evasion, which makes repentance a co-condition of the covenant, along with faith, we shall do no more in this place than refer the student to the discriminating statements of Turrettin. Ques. 3, § 15, 16, 17. When we come to justifi- cation, we shall resume it.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. 1:4

SYLLABUS

1. Has God ever had more than one covenant with man since the fall? \Miat the opinion of the Socinians hereon ? Of Anabaptists? Of Remonstrants ?

Turrettin, Loc. xii, Qu. 5, § 1-4, for statements, and 5 to end for Arguments. Racovian Catechism. Witsius, bk. iii, ch. I, 2. Hodge's Theol., pt. iii, ch. 2, §6.

2. Under how many Dispensations has the Covenant been administered? And why so many ?

Turrettin, Qu. 7. Witsius, bk. iii, Qu. 3. Ridgeley, Qu. 30, 3;^. Hodge as above, §7,

3. How much of the Covenant was revealed to the Antediluvians ? A Mediator? Sacrificial Types? Prove that Gen. iii : 15 is a Protevangel.

Turrettin, Qu. 7, § 11-17. Heb. xi : 4. Witsius, bk. iv, ch. i, 2. Dick, Lect. 50. Knapp, | 89-91. Ridgeley, Qu. 30, 33. Discourses of Redemp- tion, Dr. S. Robinson.

4. What additional revelations from Abraham to Moses ? Prove that Abraham's was also a Covenant of Grace. Does the Pentateuch reveal a promise of Eternal Life ?

Turrettin, Qu. 7, ^ 18 to end. Calvin's Inst., blv. ii, cli. 10. Warburton's Divine Legadon of Moses. Knapp and Ridgeley as above.

TNASMUCH as the plan of our Seminary directs the teacher

of Systematic Theology to give special prominence to the

successive developments of revealed truth,

to bc'Sc?™^''* of Grace f^^^^^ ^s we proceed, from the Patriarchal to

the Mosaic, and thence to the Christian

ages, we devote other exercises to the subject above announced.

In discussing it briefly, the order of topics indicated in the

syllabus of questions will be pursued.

Has God ever had more than one Covenant of Grace with The Covenant one ^'^^^ since the fall? And is the covenant in all ages. Opposing made with the Patriarchs and with Israel ^^^^^- substantially the same spiritual covenant with

that of the New Testament ? The Socinians and Anabaptists give a negative answer to this question, relying on the passages of Scripture represented by Jno. i : 17. They say that the covenant with Abraham and Israel was only national and tem- poral ; that it promised only material good ; that those of the Old Testament who were saved, were saved without a revealed promise, in virtue of that common natural religion, known, as they suppose, to good Pagans alike ; by which men are taught to hope in the mercy and benevolence of a universal Father. To these views the European Arminians partly assented, teach- ing that the Gospel through the mediator is only involved im- plicitly and generally in the Old Testament, and that no special promise through a Christ is there.

The motive of the Socinians is two fold ; that they may 440

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 44 1

Motive of the Socini- escape this insuperable difficulty ; if Christ's ans. Of the Anabap- redeeming work (in the New Testament) is *^^^^' only what they teach, that of a prophet and

exemplar, and not vicarious, there is no sense in which He can have redeemed Old Testament saints, and 2nd, that by making the difference of light and grace between the Old Testament and the New, as wide as possible, they may plausibly represent Christ as having something to do in the New Testament, digmini vindice nodum, without any atoning work. The Anabaptists, whose Socinian affinities were originally strong, take the same view of the Old Testament, in order to get rid of the doctrine that a gospel Church, substantially identical with that of the New Testament, existed in the Old Testament with its infant church members.

This discussion will be found to have an equal importance, when we come to the Popish theory of sacramental grace, Rome claims for her sacraments under the New Testament an opus operatum power. She does not claim it for the sacraments of the Old Testament : for the reason that the Apostle Paul, among other inspired men, expressly contradicts it, as Rom. ii : 25-29, and I Cor. x : 1-5. Now, if we identify the substance of the Covenant of Grace under both Testaments, we found at least a very strong probable argument for concluding that the sacraments of the two Testaments were means of grace of the same kind. Then all the explicit denials of efficiency ex opefc operato uttered in Scripture as to the Old Testament sacra- ments, become conclusive as to the sacraments of the Christian ■Church.

As to the unity of the Covenant, we have already argued this a priori, from its eternity. We may

Unity of this Cove- pursue this argument thus : If man's fall laid

nant appears a prion. \ p> . . .

him necessarily obnoxious to certain immu- table attributes of God, if man's sin necessarily and everywhere raises a certain definite difficulty between him and redemption in consequence of those inevitable attributes of God, we may fairly conclude, that whatever plan (if there can be any) is adopted by God to reconcile a sinner, that same plan substan- tially must be adopted to reconcile all other sinners of Adam's race, everywhere and always. To the Socinian indeed, this a priori consideration carries no weight ; because he does not believe in God's essential, retributive justice, &c. Let us then see from the more sure word of Scripture, whether the covenant of grace set forth in the Old Testament is not substantially identical with that in the New, in the things promised, the parties, the conditions, and the mediator ; while a difference of clearness and mode is admitted.

Unity of the Cove- This Scriptural argument cannot be

nant argued Scriptu- better collected than under the heads given '^^^y- by Turrettin, (Ques. v, § 7-23).

442 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The identity of the Covenant is substantially asserted m

general terms — e. g., in Luke i : 68-73 '■> A.;ts

^ (a)^ From direct testi- ■■ .^^^ ^^^h VS 38, 39 ; iii : 2$ ; John viii 136;.

Rom. iv : 16 ; Gal. iii : 8, 16, 17; especially the last. Remark here, that the very words in which the Cove- nant was formed with the seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii : 7 ; and which are so formally repeated in subsequent parts of the Old Testament are the very terms of the compact in the new dis- pensation, repeated as such with emphasis. See Jer. xxxi : 33 ; 2 Cor. vi : 16 ; Rev. xxi : 3.

The Mediator is the same. I Tim. ii : 5, 6 ; Gal. iii : 16 ; Mai. iii : I ; Acts iv : 12, x : 43, xv : 10, 1 1 ; ofUSrr.""'""^ Luke xxiv:_27; i Pet. 1:9-12; Rom. iii: 25 ; Heb. ix : 15 ; with many passages already cited. We need not depend on such passages as iieb. xiii : 8 ; Rev. xiii : 8 ; for although their application to prove the mediatorial office of Christ under the Old Testament is probably just, plausible evasions exist.

The condition assigned to man is the same in both — e. g., faith. And it is useless for the Socinians, dom ^'°"' "' '°"'^" &c., to say, that the faith of the Old Testa- ment was not the specific faith in the Son> the Messiah, set forth in the New, but only a general trust in God as the Universal Father. For their assertion is not true ;. and if true, it would still remain, that the faith of the Old Tes- tament and that of the New, include the same substantial fea- tures. Look at the fact that Heb. xi goes for its illustrations of faitn, (surely it was inculcating the Christian faith,) exclusively to the Old Testament ! See, also, Gen. xv : 6, with Rom. iv : 3 : Ps. ii ; 12. (Is not this specifically faith in the Son ?) Acts X : 43 ; Ps. xxxii : 10, ^^ passim.

In the fourth place, it may be asserted that to this faith of

the Old Testament saints, redemption in the

(d) From its promise. ^^^^ ^^^^ Testament sense was held forth,

with all its several parts; of justification, Ps. xxxii ; Is. i : 18 ;

Regeneration, Deut. xxx : 6 ; Ps. Ii : 10 : Spiritual gifts —

passim — e. g., Joel ii : 28, 32, as expounded by Peter, Acts ii :

Isaiah xl : 31 ; eternal life : (as we shall more fully argue under

a subsequent head, now only noticing,) Heb. iv : 9, xi : 10 ;

Exod. iii : 6, as expounded by Christ; Matt, xxii : 31, 32, and

this eternal life, including even the resurrection of the body.

Ps. xvi : 10, II, applied in Acts xiii : 34 : Job xix : 25 ; Dan.

xii : I, 2. In view of this array of proofs, how weak appears

the idea, that nothing more than the Land of Canaan and its

material joys was proposed to Israel's faith? But of this more

anon.

An argument for our proposition may be constructed out

, ^ ^ , „ of all those types under the old dispensation,

(e.) From the Types. ... .■' ^ j.i ij

^ ' which can be proved to have had an evan-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 443

gelical meaning. The promised land itself, the deliverance from Egypt, with its significant incidents ; circumcision and the passover, (" seals of the righteousness of faith,") with the whole tabernacle ritual, are proved by several parts of the New Tes- tament to have had this evangelical meaning. The argument is too wide to be briefly stated ; but every intelligent Bible reader is familiar with its materials. In its very wideness is its strength. As one specimen of it, take the Epistle of Hebrews itself. The Apostle, in interpeting the Levitical ritual, there shows that all prefigured the gospel, and the New Testament, Messiah and redemption. During the Old Testament times, therefore, it was but a dispensation of this same Covenant of Grace.

And in general, all the gospel features sown so thickly over the Old Testament, especially over the books of Psalms and Isaiah, prove our point.

Of such passages as Rom. xvi : 25 ; Gal. iv : 24; i Pet. i : 12, &c., we are well aware. We shall show their com- patibility with the proposition above demonstrated, when we come to unfold the resemblances and differences of the two dis- pensations.

We conceive the familiar and established division to be Two Dispensations Correct, which makes two dispensations only, only. Objection an- the Old Testament and the New. There ^^^^'^'^- seems no adaquate reason for regarding the

patriarchal age, from Adam to Moses, as essentially a different dispensation from that of Moses. Certainly that representation is incorrect which makes the former a free and gracious dispen- sation, while the latter only was burdened with the condemning weight of the moral and ritual law. For the moral law as to its substance, was already in force from Adam to Moses. Sacrifices already smoked on altars, and the knife descended in symbol of wrath, on innocent victims. And gracious promises on the other hand, are, at least, as thickly strown over the Scriptures of the Mosaic period, as of the patriarchal. We hardly need cite cases. There are passages, such as Gal. iii : 17 to 19th ; Deut. v : 2, 3, which speak of a ritual burden, and law which could minister only condemnation, as superadded at the Mosaic era. But we shall find that the elements of a moral law impossible for the depraved to fulfil, and of a ritual which typified only wrath to him who persisted in ignoring the Mediator and the Covenant of Grace, were also present in the patriarchal religion. The history of Cain too clearly estab- lishes these traits of the patriarchal age. These elements were only re-affirmed by Moses. If it be said that they were then brought forward with far greater prominence and distinctness, I answer, so were the gospel elements brought forward, to true believers, at the same time, with increased distinctness. When the Apostles bring out so prominently this condemning burden,

444 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of the Mosaic law, they are deahng, tor the time, with only one side of the subject. Because, they are dealing with Jews who persisted in looking for justification to this law, which apart from Christ, is only a ministry of condemnation ; who persisted in stickling for Moses, Moses, as their authority for their self- righteous perversions of the law and gospel. In dealing with this subject, theologians perpetually forget how necessarily the Apostles had to use the argmnentiim ad Jiominem against these Jews. That the patriarchial and Mosaic form properly but one dispensation appears from this. Both exhibit the great, preva- lent characteristic of types : both were prefigurative instead of being, like the New Testament, commemorative ; both had sac- rifice, circumcision, priests. The difference between them is only one of degree, and not of contrast. But when we come to the New Testament, there is a real contrast. Human priests, sacrifices and circumcision end. Types give place to antitypes; prefiguring to commemorative ordinances.

To the question why God has administered the Covenant

Why two Dispensa- ^^ Grace under two different dispensations,

tions of the same Gov- no Complete answer can be rendered, except

enant ? Ans. ^j^^^ ^f ^^^^ ^j . ^^ jj^g ^^^^ difficulty of

the question lies chiefly back, in this prior question : Why did God see fit to postpone the incarnation of the mediator so long after the fall ? For, supposing this question settled, we can see some reasons why, if the effectuating of the terms of the Cove- nant of Grace, was to be postponed thus, its declarations to man must be by a different dispensation before and after the. surety came. Before, all was prospective. Every promise must, in the nature of things, be a prediction also ; and predic- tion, prior to its fulfilment, must needs be, to finite minds, less plain than experience and history after the occurrence. Every symbolical ordinance (both dispensations for good rea- sons have such) must needs be a type ; foreshadowing. After- wards it is a commemoration, looking backward. May it not be, that the greater variety and number of the symbolical ordi- nances under the Old Testament were due to the very fact that they must needs be less distinct? God sought to make up in number what was lacking in distinctness. But to the question : why the mission of Christ was postponed nearly 4000 years, there is no adequate answer. The circumstances which made that era "the fullness of time" have been pointed out by the Church Historians. But the relations of influence and causa- tion in human affairs are too intricate and numerous for man to speculate here.

The causes assigned by Turrettin(Que. 7, § 2-6) do indeed indicate the existence of an analogy with God's other working herein. God performs all His grand results by gradations. Childhood and pupilage go before manhood and independence. So majestic a luminary as the Sun of Righteousness may be

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 445"

expected to rise gradually, and send His twilight before Him ! True ; but these are only palliations, not answers to the dififi- culty.

To appreciate correctly the amount of Gospel light pos- sessed in the patriarchal, and even in the preachecftoAdam,^^^ Mosaic ages, we must bear in mind a thing often overlooked, that the human race had just enjoyed, in Adam, personal communication with God, in fullest theophanies, which Adam, by the faculties of his perfect manhood, and other patriarchs, through their longevity, were admirably qualified to transmit well. Adam was cotemporary with Methuselah 243 years, Methuselah with Noah 600 years (dying the year of the flood) and Noah with Abram 58 years. Thus Abraham received the revelations of paradise through only two transmissions ! We must not suppose that this traditionary knowledge of God was scanty, because the hints of it given in earlier revelations are scanty ; for the purposes of the revela- tion to us through Moses did not require that God should give us full information as to the religious knowledge of the Ante- diluvians. The Bible is always a practical book, and does not wander from its aim : it concedes notJiing to a merely useless curiosity. Now, the object of God in giving to the Church of later ages this brief history of primeval man was to furnish us only with the great facts, which are necessary to enable us understandingly to connect the Covenants of Works and Grace, and to construe the spiritual history of our race. We have seen how briefly and sufficiently the book of Genesis gave us the cardinal facts of man's creation in holiness, his home in par- adise, his Sabbath, the institution of his family, the unity of the race, the federal constitution by which God has been pleased from the first to deal with it, the Covenant of Works, its breach, and the far-reaching consequences. So, God next gives us the main facts concerning the changes in His religion, which were necessary to adapt it, as a religion for sinners. These main features are all that were needed for God's purposes : and they contain the whole substance of the Covenant of Grace.

Man's theological relation is founded primarily on the nature of God and His creature ; and is essentially permanent. Hence, the theistic worship of paradise, with the Sabbath rest, its necessary means, remained as before. So, the constitution of human society, under a family government founded in mon- ogamy, remained unchanged, with the whole code of ethical duty. But man's sin and depravity had changed his attitude towards God in vital respects. Duty having been violated, the new and hitherto inoperative obligation of repentance has emerged. God teaches man this great doctrine of the religion of sinners, by converting his life from one of ease and bliss, to one of sorrow and discipline. His home is changed from a paradise to a penitentiary. Again ; guilt having been con-

44^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES.

tracted, there emerges, out of the moral attributes of God, a necessity of satisfaction for it, in order to the pardon of the sinner. This, the central truth of the religion of sinners, which points also to the central promise of the covenant of grace, had unhappily become the very truth, to which man, by reason of his corruption, would be most obtuse. His selfish depravity would incline him ever to forget the right of God's attributes in the question of a reconciliation ; and his selfish fears would prompt him to crave impunity, instead of righteous justification. Hence, in the wisdom of God, the most notable and impressive addition made by Him to the ciiltus, was the one which was devised to teach the great doctrine of the necessity of propitia- tion, and to hold out its promise. This, indeed, is the only ritual fact which needed recording. God appointed bloody sac- rifice, and required it to be the perpetual attendant of the wor- ship of sinners. Thus He taught them, in the most impressive possible way, at once the great need, and the great promise of the Covenant of Grace !

That bloody animal sacrifice was of divine appointment at this time, we argue, first, presumptively from the fact that natural reason would not have suggested it, as a suitable offer- ing to God. The doctrine of substitution, however honourable to God when revealed, is not, and cannot be, a deduction of the natural reason. Whether the Sovereign Creditor will be pleased to accept a substitutionary payment of penal debt, is a question which He only may answer. Again : doubtless the natural reason of Adam and his family saw the obvious truth, which is stated as self-evident, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that " the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins." The mere animal has neither the dignity, nor community of nature, which would suggest even the possibility of its life's being an equiva- lent for an immortal soul. Hence, we do not believe that the human reason, left to itself, would ever have devised such a mode of appeasing God. This is illustrated by the rationalistic will-worship of Cain. Not having suitable conviction of guilt, regard for God's rights as requiring satisfaction in order to pardon, nor faith in the future, undescribed sacrifice of the " Woman's Seed," he did what all other will-worshippers since have done : he exercised his own rationalistic ideas of the suitable, and his own aesthetic sentiments, in devising another oblation. He probably thought the bleeding and burning flesh unsuitable, because it was abhorrent to natural sensibility, and even to the instincts, and the senses of sight and smell. Does God find pleasure in the death-pangs of an innocent, sentient creature ? How much more appropriate the inanimate fruits of His bounty, for an oblation : the brilliant flowers, the blushing fruits, the nodding sheaf, all redolent of peace, abundance and fragrance. But it was precisely this rationalism, which, we are told in Genesis, caused the rejection of his offering. Here we

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 44/ ■

find a strong proof that Abel's was not will-worship, but the fulfilment of a divine ordinance.

This is strongly confirmed by the language of Heb. xi : 4, which tells us, that the preferableness of Abel's offering arose from this : that he " offered it by faith." Now faith implies a revealed warrant ; without this it is presumption. This text virtually tells us that animal sacrifice was by divine appoint- ment. This conclusion is also strengthened by the truth, clearly implied in Gen. ix : 3, 4, that, until after the flood, animals were not killed for food by God's people. Yet in Gen. iii : 21, Adam and Eve are, by God, clad in the skins of animals, in lieu of the frail coverings of fig leaves, which they had devised for them- selves, to conceal their shame. Whence came those skins ? They might possibly be stripped from the corpses of those that died natural deaths, or were slain by beasts of prey. But it is much more probable, that they were the skins of the sacrifices Adam was then and there taught to offer. Man's superiority to the need of raiment in Paradise was doubtless an emblem of his present holiness and guiltlessness : as his newly born shame was an emblem of his guilt and corruption. How natural then, is the conclusion, that this first effectual clothing of man the sinner was the immediate result of sacrifice, that it was sacrificial raiment he wore ; and thus we have here the natural introduction of the great idea of ^l^^^, " covering," " propitiation," so fully expand- ed afterwards. Once more, when Noah's family was at length authorized to eat animal food, the blood was expressly except- ed, because, as God teaches. He had reserved it to make atone- ment for their souls. Does not this imply that the reservation was, from the first, God's express ordinance ? Animal sacrifice was then, God's appointment ; and it found its aim in its signifi- cation of the need of satisfaction for guilt, and the promise and foreshadowing of a worthy substitute, to be afterwards provided by God. Thus we see, that the maintenance of bloody sacri- fice among the Pagans to our day, is a ritual perversion pre- cisely parallel to that we see made, by nominal Christians, ol the New Testament sacraments, a reliance on the efficacy, ex opere operate, of the symbol, instead of the divine grace symbol- ized. Trent herself could not define her doctrine of the opus oper'atmn more expressly than it was held by the Maori of New Zealand and the classic Pagans, as to their bloody rites.

The third essential truth of the Covenant of Grace taught primeval man, (and the only remaining one,) was that set forth in the protevangel of Gen. iii : 15. By becoming an apostate from God, he had become the subject of Satan, who is repre- sented by the serpent. (See Lect. xxvii : Qu. 3). The race was now become his kingdom, instead of the " kingdom of heaven." Already a sad experience was teaching them, that sin was now become a ruling principle, and not a mere incident : as their

44^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

outward misery was now ordained to be a permanent state of chastisement. Doubtless the great question with the sinners was : " Is this final?" " Or is there to be a deliverance?" The covenant of Grace answers : " Yes, there shall be a deliverance." Satan's conquest was to be reversed, destructively for Satan, by the " Seed of the Woman." The promise is brief, but wonder- fully instructive. Let only faith read it consistently ; and it pointed to a Mediator, a Deliverer, human, yet more than human, miraculously reared up, who was to be the antitype to the bleeding lamb even now exhibited, who should experience, in prosecuting the work of delivery, a blood-shedding at the hands of the adversary, like that of the suffering lamb, yet not destructive ; inasmuch as He should survive to crush the evil angel, and to deliver the captives.

That this promise is a protevangel is argued first, presump- tively, from the triviality of the alternative meaning. Did God go out of His way, on this momentous occasion, to describe merely the animal instinct, which prompts the peasant to kill a snake ? Second, the " woman's seed," properly weighed, must be seen to promise something supernatural; because in Hebrew language, the seed is always elsewhere ascribed to the male, (which is physiologically accurate). Compare Gen. xxi : 13, where Ishmael is carefully distinguished as Abraham's " seed," while " son" " of the bond-woman." Eve knew that she could only have a " seed" supernaturally. Third: the Deliverer must, from the very nature of the promised victory, be superior to Satan, who was superior to Adam. Fourth : subsequent Scrip- tures, when using language evidently allusive to this promise, represent this warfare as being between Satan and the Messiah. Thus, J no. xii : " Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Luke X : 17-19. Christ's comment on the success of His Apostles in subduing " devils" is : "I beheld Satan as light- ning fall from heaven," and He then promises them farther vic- tory over " serpents and scorpions" and " over all the power of the enemy." Here we have the old warfare of Gen. iii : 15 ; and it is between Messiah and Satan and his angels, not only symbolized by " scorpions and serpents," but expressly named. This onset of the incoming kingdom of heaven was seen by Christ to give Satan such a blow, that he appears like one dashed violently from his seat, and falling, thunder-smitten and blighted, to the earth. In Rom. xvi : 20, Paul promises God " shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." The allusion is beyond mistake. In Heb. ii : 14, the woman's seed, " through death destroys him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" where we see an exact reproduction of the bruised heel and crushed head. In Rev. xii : 9, and xx : 2, we have the final victory of Messiah, in the chaining and imprisonment of Satan the dragon.

The short record of Genesis gives us other evidences of a gos-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 449

pel dispensation, in the existence of the two classes, ' sons of God,' and 'sons of men'. Gen. vi : 2. So, the preaching of repent- ance by Enoch and Noah, and the strivings of the Holy Ghost • with carnal minds, Gen. vi : 3, all imply a coyenant of Grace. In conclusion, we know that the patriarchs before the flood had a gospel promise, because we are assured by Hebrews, chap, xi, that they had faith.

The second dividing epoch of the old dispensation was the calling of Abraham, the history of which may be seen in Gen. chap, xii to xvii. There was now an important development. All that had been given to believers remained in force, the " Church in the house," the Sabbath, the sacrifices, the moral law, and the promise. The most notable additions made upon the calling of Abraham were, first, the separation of the " sons of God" from the mass of the world, as a peculiar people, and the organization of a visible church-state in the tribe of Abra- ham ; and next, the institution of a sealing ordinance, circum- cision, as a badge of membership, and " seal of the righteous- ness of faith." The repeated tendency of the race, in spite of admonitions and judgments, towards apostasy and idolatry, had at length made the necessity of the visible Church separation obvious : it remained the only human means to preserve a seed to serve God. In that age of the world, every organized soci- ety unavoidably took the patriarchal form ; hence the family, or clan of Abraham, became the visible Church : and the race- limit tended approximately to be the boundary between Church and world. Abraham and his seed did indeed receive a promise of the temporal possession of Canaan : as in Gen. xii : 3 ; xv : 5 ; xvii : 7. But the spiritual and gospel feature implied is clear in some of the promises themselves, and is made plainer by sub- sequent Scriptures. The best exposition of the Abrahamic covenant is that given by Rom. chaps, iii and iv, and Gal. iii. We are there expressly taught, that the seed in whom the promise was made was Christ : that the central benefit received by Abraham, was gospel salvation through faith : that the sac- rament was a gospel one, a seal of the righteousnesss of faith : that the promise of Canaan was typical of that of heaven ; that Abraham is the exemplar and head of all gospel-believers : and that the society founded in his family was, and is, the visi- ble Church of Christ, reformed and enlarged at the new dispen- sation.

The original meaning of the bleeding lamb was strikingly illustrated to Abraham by the proposed sacrifice of Isaac. This taught, first, that the lamb was insuflEicient : a more pre- cious substitute must be found. Just at the crisis, when the patriarch was about to offer his only son, a rational victim, God arrests his hand, and substitutes the ram (again a mere type,) which He had provided. Abraham named the place, m^")"* 29*

450 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

nin"" "Jehovah hath chosen," thus acknowledging that when

he answered Isaac's question, in Gen, xxii : 8, n^^'H,'', D'^mT'^^.

" God will provide Himself a lamb," he had (possibly unwittingly) uttered a great, gospel-truth ; that the sinner's real substitute was to be one in the unknown future, which God was to provide, and not the believer. Thus, salvation is to be gratuitous, though only through a divinely constituted substitute, and man's part is to embrace it by faith.

Last, the compact with Abraham was summed up in the words : " I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." We have seen that this was the formula of the Covenant of Grace. Such then, was God's compact with the Father of the faithful.

And here we must pause a moment, to consider the ques- Eternal Life was re> tion famously debated in the negative, for vealed to the Patri' instance, by Warburton s Divme Legal, ot archs. Moses : " Whether the patriarchal ages had

any revealed promise of future eternal life ? " I would premise that the scantiness of the teachings on this point will not sur- prise us, if we remember that this fundamental truth is rather assumed than taught. It has been well remarked, that the Bible no where sets itself deliberately to teach the existence of God ! We may well suppose the traditionary religion received from Adam made the immortality of the soul and future rewards, so clear that little was then needed to be said about it. The bein^ of a God and the immortality of the soul are the two postulates essential to all religion. We assert then that the natural and proper way for inspiration to proceed, in reveal- infT a religion, is to postulate these two truths, and not to waste time in proving them. The soul's immortality is as essential to the being of a religion as the existence of God. I might prove this experimentally by the fact, that materialists are always virtually without a religion. It follows logically; for experience concurs with revelation in showing, that in this life, " the wicked flourish like the bay tree ; " so that, if the future life be denied, there will remain, for the denier, no room whatever for the -sanctions of any religion. But let us see if this doctrine was not made sufficiently clear to the patriarchs. (It may be found acutely argued in Calv. Inst. bk. ii : ch. lO, which we mainly follow).

(a.) They had promises: The New Testament expressly declares these promises were the gospel. See Luke i : 69-73, x : 24 ; Rom. iv : 13, &c.

(b.) The patriarchs embraced the promises they had (be they what they may) with a religious faith. Who can dispute this? It is too expressly declared in Heb. ch. xi. But both Testaments tell us, that faith is a principle of eternal life. Habak. ii : 4 : Heb. x : 38.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 45 I

(c.) The Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. xvii : 7, to be a God to him and his seed, imphes the continued existence of the patriarch. All this promise of a prosperous seed and of their continued relation to God as their patron, could have had no interest to Abraham, and could have been no boon to him, if he was doomed to extinction. Besides, as this prom- ise is expounded in the Pentateuch itself, and more fully in subsequent Scriptures, it is the eternity of God, which makes the covenant so great a privilege. See Deut. xxxiii : 27, and Ps. xvi : 5 and end, and xlviii : 14. What interest would a party doomed to early extinction have in the eternity of his benefactor ? ^

(d.) Our Saviour's argument, m Matt, xxii : 32-34, is founded on Exod. iii : 6. " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The peculiar appropriateness of this refuta- tion of Sadduceeism is seen in this : That they are said to have admitted only they inspiration of the Pentateuch : and hence Christ goes for His proof-text to that code and not to any later revelation. Materialists as they were, they gloried pro- fessedly in the national covenant with God, (as ensuring earthly privilege). Christ therefore cites them to the familiar terms of that covenant, as of itself containing enough to show, that the doctrine of immortality is its very foundation. It is as though He said to them, tliat it was unnecessary to contend about the authority of the later prophets, who confessedly say so much about immortality. He can find abundant refutation in that most familiar formula, which was in everybody's mouth. The subsistence in Moses' day of a covenant relation with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, implies the continued existence of those parties. And as the parties were not ghosts, but incarnate men, when the everlasting God bargained with them ; it is implied that His power, of which the Sadducees had no proper idea, would restore them by a bodily resurrection to that state.

(e.) If the promise to the patriarchs were only of tempo- ral good, it was never fulfilled ; for they were strangers and pilgrims in the very land promised them.

(f.) Their dying exercises pointed to an immortality. Heb. xi : 16 tells us that they sought a better country, even a heav- enly. This is borne out as a fact, by such passages as Gen. xlix : 18, and 33, and Numb, xxiii : 10.

When we resort to the New Testament we find many evi- dences, that its writers regarded the Old Testament as contain- ing the Covenant of Grace, and the doctrine of immortality, in all its parts. Two passages may be cited, as specimens. In Jno. V : 39, our Lord says to the Jews, " Search the Scriptures " (the Old Testament), " for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." In Acts xxiv : 14, 15. Paul, when pleading before Felix, declared that he believed " all things which are written in the law and in the prophets, and had

452 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead."

SYLLABUS

5. What farther developments of the Covenant of Grace were made by the Mosaic Economy ? ■>,

Turrettin, Loc. xii, Qu. 7, § 24-26. Witsius, bk. iii, ch. 3 ; bk. iv, ch. 4. Ridgeley, Qu. 33, 34, g i. Knapp, § 90, 91.

6. What was the true nature of the Covenant made by God with Israel at Sinai, through Moses ?

Turrettin, Qu. 12. Calvin, bk. ii, ch. 7, 10. Witsius as above, and bk. iv, ch. 10. Ridgeley, Qu. 34, 35.

7. How do the Old and New Dispensations differ inter se ?

Turrettin, Qu. 7, § 27 to end, and Qu. 28. Calvin, bk. ii, ch. 10, 11. Wit- sius, bk. iv, ch. 12, 13. Ridgeley, Qu. 34, 35.

8. Do the Scriptures teach a Limbus Patrum 9 And were Old Testament believers glorified at their death or not?

Turrettin, Qu. 10, II ; Qu. 9, g i-ii. Knapp, § 150. Catech. Rom., pt. i, ch. 6, Qu. 1-6. Knapp, § 96. Witsius, bk. iv, ch. 12, On the whole Fair- bairn's Typology.

ZOOMING now to the last stage of the old dispensation, the

^^ Covenant of Sinai, we find several marked and impressive

additions to the former revelations. But

5. Additions at Smai. ^^^^ ^^jj^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^j^^^ developments

of existing features of the gospel, than new elements. These traits were, chiefly the republication of the moral Law with every adjunct of majesty and authority, the establishment of a Theocratic State-Church, in place of simpler patriarchal forms, .with fully detailed civic institutions, the Passover, a new sacra- ment ; and the great development of the sacrificial ritual.

The Covenant of Sinai has seemed to many to wear such The Covenant of 3-" aspect of legality, that they have sup- Sinai not a Covenant posed themselves constrained to regard it as a of Works. species of Covenant of Works ; and, there-

fore a recession from the Abrahamic Covenant, which, we are expressly told, (John viii : 56 ; Gal. iii : 8,) contained the gospel. Now, it is one objection, that this view, making two distinct dis- pensations between Adam and Christ, and the first a dispen- sation of the Covenant of Grace, and the one which came after, of the Covenant of Works, is a priori, unreasonable. For, it is unreasonable in this : that it is a recession, instead of a progress ; whereas every consistent idea of the plan of Reve- lation makes it progressive. It is unreasonable ; because both the Old and New Testaments represent the Sinai Covenant as a signal honour and privilege to Israel. But they also represent the Covenant of Works as inevitably a covenant of death to man

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 453

after the Fall; so that had the transactions of Sinai been a regression from the " Gospel preached before unto Abraham," to a Covenant of Works, it would have been a most signal curse poured out on the chosen people. The attempt is made to evade this, by saying that, while eternal life to the Hebrews was now suspended on a covenant of works, they were ritual works only, in which an exact formal compliance was all that was required. This is untenable ; because it is inconsistent with God's spiritual and unchangeable character, and with His honour ; and because the Mosaic Scriptures are as plain as the New Testament in disclaiming the sufficiency of an exact ritual righteousness, as the term of eternal life, and in requiring a per- fect, spiritual obedience. If a ritual obedience was accepted instead of a spiritual one, that was an act of grace — a remis- sion of the claims of laws — so that the Mosaic turns out a dis- pensation of grace, after all. But grace was preached to Abel, Noah, Abraham, in a prior dispensation, through a Mediator to come. Now, through what medium was this gracious remission of law given to Israel, at Sinai ? The answer we give is so consistent, that it appears self-evident, almost : That it was through the same Christ to come, already preached to the Patri- archs, and now typified in the Levitical sacrifices. So that the theory I combat resolves itself, in spite of itself, as it were, into the correct theory, viz : That the promise contained in the Cove- nant of Sinai was through the Mediator, typified in the Leviti- cal sacrifices; and that the term for enjoying that promise was not legal, not an exact ritual obedience, but gospel faith in the antitype.

The French divines, Camero and Amgraut, proposed an ingenious modification of the legal theory of Moses' covenant : That in it a certain kind of life was proposed (as in the Cove- nant of Works,) as a reward for an exact obedience : But that the life was temporal, in a prosperous Canaan, and the obedi- ence was ritual. This is true, so far as a visible church-standing turned on a ritual obedience. But to the Hebrew, that tempo- ral life in happy Canaan was a type of heaven ; which was not promised to an exact moral obedience, but to faith. Were this theory modified, so as to represent this dependence of the He- brew's church-standing on his ritual obedience, as a mere type and emblem of the law's spiritual work as a " schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," it might stand.

But let us proceed to a more exact examination. We find that the transactions at Sinai included the Additions at Sinai. foii^^ying : (a) A republication of the Moral Law, with greatest majesty and authority, (b) An expansion of the Ritual of the typical service, with the addition of a second sacrament, the passover. (c) The change of the visible Church instituted in Gen. 17th, into a theocratic Commonwealth- Church — both in one. (d) The legal conditions of outward

454 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

good-standing were made more burdensome and exacting than they had been before. This last feature was not a novelty, (See Gen. xvii : 14,) but it was made more stringent.

Can the designs of these modifications be explained con- sistently with our view? Yes. As to the leir esigns. theocratic state, this was necessitated by the

numbers of the Church, which had outgrown the family state — and needed temporal institutions capable of still larger growth, even into a grand nation. The amplified ritual was designed to foreshadow the approaching Christ, and the promi- ses of the Covenant more fully. Next : The legal conditions for retaining outward ecclesiastical privileges were made more stringent, in order to enable the Law to fulfil more energeti- cally the purpose for which St. Paul says it was added, to be a paedagogue to lead to Christ. (See Gal. iii ; 19, 22). For this stringency was designed to be, to the Israelite, a perpetual reminder of the law which was to Adam, the condition of life, now broken, and its wrath already incurred, thus to hedge up the awakened conscience to Christ. This greater urgency was made necessary by the sinfulness of the Church and its ten- dencies to apostacy, with the seductions of Paganism now general in the rest of mankind.

The passover, a peculiarly gospel sacrament, was added, to illustraie the way of salvation by faith, upon occasion of the exodus and deliverance of the first-born. The captivity in Egypt was an emblem of man's bondage under the curse ; and the dreadful death of the first-born, of the infliction of the sen- tence. The Hebrews escape that doom, by substituting a sacrifice ; which is a type of Christ. (See Jno. i : 36 ; i Cor. V : 7). But the saved family then eat that victim, thus signify- ing the appropriating act of faith, very much as is done in the commemorative sacrament of the Supper now.

The followers of Cocceius and his school have texts which, 6. Moses' Dispen- '^^ admit, bear plausibly against our identifi- sation same in sub- cation of the Mosaic and Abrahamic dispen- stance as Abraham's, sations. They point US, not only to the nume- rous places in the Pentateuch which seem to say, like Levit. xviii : 5, " Do, and live ;" but to such passages as Jer. xxxi : 32, which seems to say that the Covenant of Grace is " not according to the covenant made the fathers in the day God took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." So, they urge Jno. i : 17 : Gal. iii : 12 ; Rom. x : 5 ; Gal. iv : 25 ; Heb. viii : 7-13 ; ix : 8 ; ii : 3. (The new covenant "began to be spoken by the Lord," and so, must not antedate the Chris- tian era), vii : 18, and such like passages.

But, notwithstanding this array, there are preponderating, even irresistible arguments for the other side. And first, we urge the general consideration that the Bible never speaks of more than two Covenants : that of the Law, or Works, and that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 455

of Grace. The dispensations also are but two, " the first and the second ;" the " new and the old." But if Moses' dispen- sation was a legal one in essence, then we must have three ; for Abraham's was doubtless a gracious one. We add, that there are but two imaginable ways ; and but two known to Scripture ; " grace" and " works," by which a soul can win adoption of life. The latter, the Scriptures declare to be utterly impracticable after man's fall. Since the Israelites were fallen men, if their covenant was not gracious, it was only a condemn- ing one. Its result was only their destruction. But, second, the latter conclusion is utterly inconsistent with the fact that God covenanted with them at Sinai, in mercy, and not in judi- cial wrath : as their redeemer and deliverer, and not as their •destroyer. This transaction, whatever it was, was proposed and accepted as a privilege, not a curse. Exod. xix : 5 ; xx : 2 ; xxxiv : 6, y \ Ps. Ixxviii : 35. For, third, the compact of Sinai included all the essential parties and features, and adopted the very formula, which we have seen were characteristic of the Covenant of Grace. On the one side was God, transacting with them, not as Proprietor and Judge, but, as beneficent Father. On the other side was the people, amass chosen in their sin and unworthiness. See Ezek. xvi : 3-6 ; Ps. cix : 21 ; Is. xxxvii : 35. Between these parties was Moses, as a Mediator, the most eminent type of Christ in the whole history. And the compact is ratified in the very terms of the covenant of Grace. " I will be your God, and ye shall be my people." (See Levit. xxvi : '12; Jer. xi : 4 ; xxx : 22). Fourth : I borrow the argument of the Apostle from Gal. iii : 17 ; fidelity to the bond already contracted with Abraham and his seed, forbade the after formation of a different compact with them. The last testament is valid in law against the previous ones, but the first bond excludes subse- quent contracts of an inconsistent tenour. This is powerfully confirmed by the fact, that Moses, in confirming the Sinai-Cove- nant with Israel, tells them more than. once, that they enter it as Abraham's seed. Deut. vii : 8, 9, 12 ; Exod. iii : 6, 7. Com- pare Ps. cv : 6 ; Isaiah xli : 8. This shows that, whatever the cove- nant with Abraham was, that with Israel was a renewal of it. Fifth : The very " book of the testimony," and all the utensils of the sanctuary were purified with blood ; as we are taught in Heb. ix : 18-23. Why all this? The Apostle says it was to fore- shadow the truth, that Christ's blood must be the real propitiation carried, for sinners, into the upper sanctuary. Our opponents would agree with us, that the sacrifices of the altar were the most notable features of the Levitical dispensation. But we are taught that these all pointed to Christ, the true priest and victim. Heb. ix : 23, &c., tells us that this great feature, that "without the shedding of blood was no remission," was to hold up the grand truth of the necessity of satisfaction for guilt by Christ's blood. Thus, the more Levitical sacrifices we find, the

456 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

more Gospel do we find. Sixth : Men feel driven to the con- clusion we combat, they say, by the re-enactment of the law. But the law, both moral and ritual, was in force under Abra- ham. See Rom. v : 13, 14 ; Gen. xvii : 14.

Seventh : Both the moral, and a (less burdensome) ritual law are still binding, in the same sense, under the New Testa- ment dispensation, (See Matt, v: 17; Jno. iii. : 5 ; Mark xvi : 16.) Surely the New Testament is not therefore a Covenant of Works ! Last, Christ expressly says, that Moses taught of Him. Lukexxiv:27; Jno. v : 46. Moses must then, have taught the Gospel. And in Rom. x : 6, the inspired expositor, when he would state the plan of salvation by grace through faith, in express contrast to the Covenant of Works (as stated iu Levit. xviii : 5, for instance) borrows the very words of Moses' Covenant with Israel from Deut. xxx : 11. Does he abuse the sense ?

,To remove the cavil founded on each text quoted agamst us, by a detailed exposition, would consume too much space. It is not necessary. By discussing one of the strongest of them, we shall sufficiently suggest the clue to all. The most plausi- ble objection is that drawn from Jer. xxxi : 32, where the prophet seems to assert an express opposition between the new covenant, which Heb. vii, indisputably explains as the Cov- enant of Grace, and that made with Israel at the Exodus. There is unquestionably, a difference asserted here ; and it is the difference between law and grace. But it is the Covenant of Sinai viewed in one of its limited aspects only, which is here set in antithesis to the Covenant of Grace : It is the secular theocratic covenant, in which political and temporal prosperity in Canaan was promised, and calamity threatened, on the con- ditions of theocratic obedience or rebellion. The justice and relevancy of the prophet Jeremiah's, and of the apostle's logic, in selecting this aspect of the Sinai Covenant to display, by contrast, the grace of the new covenant, are seen in this : that self-righteous Jews, throwing away all the gracious features of their national compact, and thus perverting its real nature, were founding all their pride and hopes on this secular feature. The prophet points out to them that the fate of the nation, under that theocratic bond, had been disaster and ruin ; and this, because the people had ever been too perverse to comply with its legal terms, especially, inasmuch as God had left them to their own strength. But the spiritual covenant was to differ (as it always had), in this vital respect : that God, while covenant- ing with His people for their obedience, would make it His part to write His law in their hearts. Thus He would Himself graciously ensure their continuance in faith and obedience. Witsius happily confirms this view, by remarking that, in all the places where the secular, theocratic compact is stated, as a Cov- cnnnt of Works, we see no pledge on God's part, that He

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 45/

*' will circumcise their hearts," as in Deut. xxx : 6. There, the ensuing compact is interpreted by St. Paul (Rom. x : 6,) as the Covenantor Grace. So, in Jer. xxxi : 33, 34. God engages graciously to work in His elect people the holy affections and principles, which will embrace, and cleave to the promise. But in all such places as Levit. xviii : 5 ; Jer, xxxi: 29; Ezek. xviii, the duties required are secular, and the good gained or forfeited is national. In truth, the transaction of God with Israel was two-fold : it had its shell, and its kernel ; its body, and its spirit ; its type, and its antitype. The corporate, theo- cratic, political nation was the shell : the elect seed were the kernel. See Rom. chaps, x and xi. The secular promise was the type : the spiritual promise of redemption through Christ was the antitype. The law was added as "a. schoolmaster," to bring God's true people, the spiritual seed mixed in the out- ward body, to Christ. This law the carnal abused, as they do now, by the attempt to establish their own righteousness under it. A correct view of the nature of that display made of the 7. Differences of Covenant of Grace in the Old Dispensation, Old Dispensation from will be gained by comparing it with the New, • All orthodox writers agree that there is both

law and gospel in the Old Testament Scriptures. If, by the Old Testament Covenant, is understood only that legal covenant of moral and ceremonial works, then there will indeed be ground for all the strong contrast, when it is compared with the Gospel in the New Testament, which some writers draw between the severity and terror of the one, and the grace of the other. But in our comparison, we shall be understood as comparing the Old Dispensation with the New, taken with all their fea- tures, as two wholes. We find Turrettin (Ques. 8, § 18, 25), makes them differ in their date or time, in their clearness, in their facility of observance, in their mildness, in their perfec- tion, in their liberty, in their amplitude, and in their perpetuity. Calvin (B. 2, ch. ii,) finds five differences: that the Old Testa- ment promises eternal life typically under figures of Canaan, that the Old Testament is mainly typical, that it is literal (while the New Testament is spiritual) that it gendered to bondage, and that it limited its benefits to one nation.

I am persuaded that the strong representations which these

^, ^, , , writers (and most others following them,) and.

The Old too much , ,1 ^ . , ,. ' ^ '

Depreciated. Y^^ more, the Cocceian school, give of the

bondage, terror, literalness, and intolerable weight of the institutions under which Old Testament saints lived, will strike the attentive reader as incorrect. The expe- rience, as recorded of those saints, does not answer to this theory ; but shows them in the enjoyment of a dispensation free, spiritual, gracious, consoling. I ask emphatically : does not the New Testament Christian of all ages, go to the recorded experiences of those very Old Testament saints, for

458 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the most happy and glowing expressions in which to utter his hope, gratitude, spiritual joy? Is it said that these are the experiences of eminent saints, who had this full joy (even as compared to New Testament saints) not because the published truth was equal to that now given : but because they had higher spiritual discernment? I reply: By nature they were just like " us, sinners of the gentiles ; " so that if they had more spiritual discernment, it must be because there was a freer and fuller dis- pensation of the Holy Ghost to them than to us. (Much fuller ! to repair all defect of means, and more than bring them to a level.) But this overthrows Calvin's idea of the dispensation as a less liberal one. Or, is it pleaded that these are only the inspired, and therefore exceptional cases of the Old Testament Church ? I answer : Did not God give the inspired experien- ces as appropriate models for those of their brethren? These distorted representations have been produced by the seeming force of such passages as Jno. i : 17; 2 Cor. iii : 6, 7; Gal. iii : 19, 2j; iv : I, 4 and 24-26 ; Heb. viii : 8; Acts xv : 10. But the scope and circumstances of the Apostles, in making such statements, are greatly overlooked. They were arguing, for the gospel plan, against self-righteous Jews, who had per- versely cast away the gospel significance out of the Mosaic institutions to which they clung, and who retained only the condemning features of those institutions ; vainly hoping to make a righteousness out of compliance with a law, whose very intent was to remind men that they could make no righteous- ness for themselves. Hence we must always remember that the Apostles are using, to a certain extent, an argumciituin ad honiineni : they are speaking of the Mosaic institutions under the Jewish view of them. They are treating of that side or aspect, which alone the perverse Jew retained of them. Here is the key.

The truth is, both dispensations are precisely alike, in hav- ing two sides to them : a law which condemns

The New Testament those who will persist in self-righteous plans; Laniruasje as to it bx- , i i • i ^i 111

plained. New Testa- and a gospei which rescues the humble ment also a Uispensa- believer from that condemnation. The obli- Rit"ua'iist'^°"'^''^^ ^° gation of Works, (which was reenacted in the Decalogue,) is perpetual, being founded on the very relations between man and God, on all except those who are exempted from it by the substitutionary righteouness of the Mediator. It is of force now, on all others. It thunders just as it did in Eden and on Sinai. Nor, I beg you to note, is the Old Testament singular, in enjoining a ritual law, which is also "the letter that killeth," a "carnal ordinance," a "ministration of death," to those who perversely refuse to be pointed by it to the Messiah, and who try to make a self-righteouness out of it. The New Testament also has its sacraments ; all are com- manded to partake, yet he that eateth and drinketh, not dis-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 459

cerning the Lord's body, "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself;" and he that takes the water of Baptism self-right- eously, only sees therein a terrible symbol of his need of a cleansing which he does not receive. Let an evangelical Chris- tian imagine himself instructing and refuting a modern Ritualist of the school of Rome or the Tractarians. He would find himself necessarily employing an arguinenttmi ad hoininem pre- cisely like that of Paul against the Pharisees. The evangelical believer would be forced to distinguish between the legal or condemning, and the gospel side of our ow^n sacraments; and he would proceed to show, that by attempting to make a self- righteousness out of those sacraments, the modern Pharisee was going back under a dispensation of condemnation and bondage; that he was throwing away 'the spirit which giveth life,' and retaining only the 'letter that killeth.'

The New Testament has also its sacrifice ; the one sacrifice of Christ; and to him who rejects the pardon which it pur- chased, it is a ministry of damnation, more emphatic than all the blood of beasts could utter. Both dispensations have their "letter that killeth," as well as their "spirit that giveth life," their Sinai as well as their Zion. And in the very place alluded to, it is the killing letter of the New Testament of which Paul speaks, 2 Cor iii : 6. Besides in the Old Testament no part of the ritual could be more crushing than the moral command- ment "exceeding broad," is to the unrenewed. But see Matt. v: 17-20.

Again, the Old Testament distinguished both as to its word, and its ordinances, between this letter that killeth and this spirit that giveth life. Deut. X : 12; Ps. 1: 16, 17, 22 and 23; Prov. xxi : 3 ; i Samuel XV : 22 ; Ps. li : 16, 17 ; Isa. i: 13-20 &c.

Now just as the Christian minister would argue with a nominal Christian who persisted in making a righteousness out of the sacraments, so the Apostles argued with the Jews, who persisted in making a righteousness out of their ritual. Thus abused, the ritual of the Old Testament and of the New loses its gracious side, and only retains its condemning. Peter says. Acts XV : 10 , the ritual was a yoke which neither Jews nor their fathers were able to bear. Did God signalize His favour to His chosen people by imposing an intolerable ritual? Is it true that well disposed Jews could not bear it ? See Luke i : 6 ; Phil, iii : 6. No: Peter has in view the ritual used in that self- righteous sense, in which the Judaizing Christians regarded it while desiring to impose it on Gentiles. As a rule of justifi- cation it would be intolerable. The decalogue (2 Cor. iii : 7) would be a ministration of death to him who persisted to use it as these Jews did. But Moses gave it as only one side, one member of his dispensation, "to be a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ." Gal. iii: 16 speaks of a law given 430 years after the Convenant of Grace, and seeming to be contrasted. But it

460 SYLLABUS AKD NOTES

"could not disannul it." Did not Abraham's Covenant of Grace survive this law, as much in the ante-Christian, as in the post-Christian times ?

Calvin says, as I conceive, perverting the sense of Gal. 4th, that the time of bondage, in which "the heir Gal. 3d and 4th Ex- (jiffgred nothing from the slave," was the time of the Jewish dispensation, while the time of liberation was the time of the "Christian dispensation. Not so. As to the visible Church collectively, and its outward or eccle- siastical privilege, this was true ; but not as to individual believers in the Church. And this distinction satisfies the Apostle's scope in Gal. 3d and 4th, and Heb. viii : 7, 8, and reconciles Avith passages about to be quoted, [cf. Turrettin on Heb. ix: 8, Que. ii, § 14.] Was David still in bondage, " dif fering nothing from that of a slave," when he sung Ps. xxxii : i, 2, cxvi : 16? The time of tutelage was, to each soul, the time of his self-righteous, unbelieving, convicted, but unhumbled struggles. The time of the liberty is, when he has flown to Christ. This, whether he was Israelite or Christian. Isaac, says another, symbolized the gospel believer, Ishmael, the Hebrew. Were not Isaac and Ishmael cotemporary ? Inter- pret the allegory consistently. And was it not Isaac, who was, not allegorically, but literally and actually, the Hebrew, the sub- ject of an Old Testament dispensation, a ritual dispensation, a typical one, only differing from the Mosaic in details ? This would be to represent the Apostle as making a bungling alle- gory, indeed, to choose the man who was actually under the dispensation of bondage, as the type of the liberty, had St. Paul intended to prove that the Old Dispensation was a bond- age. And it would be bungling logic, again, to represent the spiritual liberty to which he wished to lead his hearers, by sonship to Abraham, if Abraham were the very head, with whom the dispensation of bondage was formed ! St. Paul warns the foolish Galatians who " desired to be under the law." " Do ye not hear the law?" (Gal. iv: 21.) The thing which the law says to such self-righteous fools, is read in Gal. iii : 10. " As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse," &c. St. Paul's allegory says that Ishmael's mother (the type of the soul in bondage) represents Sinai, and Sinai again, " The Jerusalem which now is." Sarah, then, represents what ? "The Jerusalem which is above, and is free." Which of these answereth to King David's Zion' "the city of the great King, in whose palaces God is known as a Refuge" ? (Ps. xlviii : 3, 4.) Obviously, Sarah and her children. But the Pharisees of the Apostle's day claimed to be the heirs of that very Zion, and did literally and geographically inhabit it ! How is this? They were in form the free-woman's heirs — in fact, bastards. And they had dis- inherited themselves, by casting away the gospel, and selecting the legal significance of the transactions of Sinai. The Sinai

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 46 1

which now anwsereth to the bond-woman is not the Sinai of Mo- ses, of Jehovah, and of Abraham ; but the Sinai of the legaHst, the Sinai which the Pharisee insisted on having.

You will not understand me as asserting that the Old Tes- tament dispensation was as well adapted to Yet the Old Neces- ^j-^g pursposes of redemption as the New.

sanly Inferior. . ^ 1 i , • 1

ihis would be m the teeth of Heb. vni : 7, &c. The inferior clearness, fullness, and liberality result necessarily from the fact that it preceded .Christ's com- ing in the flesh. The visible Church, in its collective capacity, was as to its outward means and privileges, in a state of minority and pupilage. But every true believer in it looked forward by faith, through that very condition of inferiority, to the blessings covenanted to him in the coming Messiah ; so that his soul, individually, was not in a state of minority or bondage ; but in a state of full adoption and freedom. This state of the visible Church, however, as contrasted with that which the Church now enjoys, is illustrative of the contrast between the spiritual state of the elect soul, before conversion, while convicted and self-righteous, and after conversion while rejoicing in hope. This remark may serve to explain the language of Galatians 3d and 4th.

I would discard, then, those representations of the intoler- able harshness, bondage, literalness, absence ference.'^°'"^' °^ ^'^' of spiritual blessing, in the old dispensation, and give the following modified statement.

(a.) The old dispensation preceded the actual transacting of Christ's vicarious work. The new dispensation succeeds it.

(b.) Hence, the ritual teachings, (not all the teachings) of the old dispensation were typical ; those of the New Testament are commemorative symbols. A type is a symbolic prediction ; and for the same reason that prophecy is less intelligible before the event, than history of it afterwards, there was less clear- ness and fullness of disclosure. (See i Pet. i: 12.) Again, because under the Old Testament the Divine sacrifice by which guilt was to be removed, was still to be made ; the sacrificial types, (those very types which foreshadowed the pardoning grace as well as the condemning justice,) presented a more prominent and repeated exhibition of guilt than now, under the gospel ; when the sacrifice is completed; (Heb. x: 3,) because it was harder to look to the true propitiation in the future, than it is now in the past ; the voice of the law, the paedagogue who directed men's eyes to Christ, was graciously rendered louder and more frequent than it is now.

(c) Perspicuity in commemorating being easier than in predicting, the ritual teachings of the previous dispensation were more numerous, varied and laborious.

(d) God, in His inscrutable wisdom, saw fit to limit the old dispensation to one nation, so far at least, as to require that any

462 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sinner embracing it should become an Israelite ; and to make the necessary ritual territorial and local. Under the New Testa- ment all nations are received alike.

(e) The previous dispensation was temporary', the New Testament will last till the consummation of all things.

With reference to the state of the Old Testament saints in 8. Old Testament ^^e Other world, we discard the whole fable Saints Redeemed at of the Papists concerning a limbus patrum, '^^^^^- . and the postponement of the application of

redemption to them till Christ's death. Christ's suretyship is such that His undertaking the believer's work, releases the believer as soon as the condition is fulfilled. He is not merely Fide jussor, but ex proinissor (Turrettin), Christ being an immu- table, almighty and faithful surety, when He undertook to make satisfaction to the law, it was, in the eye of that God to whom a thousand years are but as one day, as good as done. (Here, by the way, is some evidence that the chief necessity of atonement was not to make a governmental display, but to satisfy God's own attributes). See Rom. iii : 25 ; Heb. ix : 15 ; Ps. xxxii : I, 2 ; li : 2 ; 10-13 ! ^iii : 12 ; Is. xliv : 22 ; Luke xvi : 22, 23 ; with Matt, viii : ii ; Lukeix : 31 ; Ps. Ixxiii : 24 ; i Pet. iii: 19 ; Heb. xi : 16 ; xii : 23.

These texts seems to me to prove, beyond all doubt, that Christ's sacrifice was for the guilt of Old Testament believers, as well as those under the New Testament ; that the antici- pative satisfaction was imputed to the ancient saints when they believed, and that at their death, they went to the place of glory in God's presence. What else can we make of the trans- lations of Enoch and Elijah, and the appearance of Moses in glor^', before Christ's death?

The strength of the Papists' scriptural argument is in the last two of the texts cited by me. I may

No Ljmbus Patrum. ji i -d • , ^ ■u-ii.i -n-i.

add, also. Rev. xiv : 13, which the rapists would have us understand, as though the terinhms a quo of the blessedness of the believing dead were from the date of that oracle ; implying that hitherto those dying in the Lord had not been immediately blessed. It is a flagrant objection to this exposition, that the Apocalypse, was a whole generation after Christ's resurrection, when, according to Papists, the dying saints began to go to heaven. The terminus is, evidently, the date of each saint's death. The testimony from Heb. ix : 8, you have seen answered, by your text-book, Turrettin. The Apostle's scope here shows that his words are not to be wrested to prove that there was no application of redemption until after Christ died. The author is attempting to show that the Leviti- cal temple and ritual were designed to be superseded. This he argues, with admirable address, from the nature of the services ■ themselves : The priests offered continually, and the High Priest every year, by the direction of the Holy Ghost ; by

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 463

which God showed that that ritual was not to be permanent ; for if it had been adequate, it would have done its work and ceased. Its repetition showed that the work of redemption was not done ; and never would be, until another dispensation came, more efficacious than it. Such is the scope. Now, the words, "the way into the sanctuary was not yet manifested," in such a connection, are far short of an assertion, that no believing soul could, at death, be admitted to heaven. Is not the meaning rather, that until Christ finished His sacrifice, the human priest still stood between men and the mercy-seat?

But the locus palmarius of the Papists for a Limbiis Pa- triim, is I Pet. iii : 19, &c. On this obscure

Pet T^'^iQ &c"°' ''^ ^ ^^^^ y*^*-^ "^"^y consult, besides commentaries, (among whom see Calvin in loco,) Knapp, Chr. TheoL, § 96 ; Turrettin, Loc. xii, Que. ii, § 15 ; Loc. xiii. Que. 15, § 12. Here, again, our safest guide is the Apostle's scope, which is this : Christ is our Exemplar in submitting patiently to undeserved suffering. For Him his own people slew : the very Saviour who, so far from deserving ill at their hands, had in all ages been offering gospel mercy to them and their fathers, even to those most reprobate of all, the Antedi- luvians. But the same Divine Nature in which Christ had been so mercifully carrying a slighted gospel to that ancient gene- ration, (now, for their unbelief, shut up in the prison of hell,) gloriously raised Him from the dead, after their equally repro- bate posterity had unjustly slain Him. Here is our encourage- ment while we suffer innocently after the example of our Head. For this resurrection, which glorified Him over all His ancient and recent enemies, will save us. Then we, redeemed by that grace which was symbolized to the ancient believers by the type of the ark, and to modern, by the sacrament of baptism, \y\\\ emerge triumphantly from an opposing and persecuting world ; as Christ's little Church, (consisting then of a number contemptible in unbelievers' eyes,) in Noah's day, came out from the world of unbelievers.

With this simple and consistent view of the Apostle's drift, the whole dream of a descent into Hades, and a release of the souls of the patriarchs from their liuibits, is superfluous, and therefore unreasonable.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ps. 1: 16
  2. Isa. i: 13-20
  3. Gal. iii: 16
  4. Heb. ix: 8
  5. Gal. iv: 21
  6. Heb. x: 3

SYLLABUS

1. What the meaning of the word Mediator? Why needed in the Covenant of Grace ?

Lexicons. Turrettin, Loc. xiii, Qu. 3. Dick, Lect. 51.

2. Is Jesus of Nazareth the Promised Mediator? Against Jews.

Turretrin, Qu. i, 2. Home's Introduction, Vol, i, (Am. Ed.) Appendix, § 6.

3. What is the constitution of Christ's person ? State the doctiine of the Gnos- tics, Eutychians, Nestorians and Chalcedon hereon. What the results, in the media- torial person and acts, of this hypostatic union ?

Hill's Div., bk. iii, ch. 8. Turrettin, Qu. 6, 7, 8. Church Histories, espe- cially Gieseler's, Vol. i, § 42-45, and 86-88. Neander's, Vol. ii, p. 434, &c. Torrey's Tr. Dick, Lect. 53. Conf. of Faith, ch. 8. Ridgeley, Qu. 37. Dr. Wm. Cunninghum's, Hist. Theology, ch. 10.

4. Was Christ's human nature peccable?

Plumer, " Person and Sinless Character of Christ." Hodge, Theol., Vol. ii, p. 457. Schaff's Person of Christ. Dorner's Hist. Prot. Theology.

5. Does Christ perfonn His mediatorial ofiices in both Natures? Why was each necessary ?

Turrettin, Qu. 3, and Loc. xiv, Qu. 2. Calvin's Inst., bk. ii, ch. 12. Dick, Lect. 51, 53. Ridgeley, Qu. 38-40. Turrettin, Loc. xiii, Qu. 9.

6. What the Socinian view of the necessity of Christ's Prophetic Work ? Turrettin, Loc. i, Qu. 4. Stapfer, ch. 12, § 18-25, ^^'^ 122, &c.

nPHE word mediator is in the New Testament Msmzr^^ middle man. The phrase does not occur in the Old Testament,

r. Mediatorwhat? ^^^^fg^ '^ the Sept. translation of Job ix : 33. (Engl. V : days-man, ) and then with the sense of umpire, not of mediator. Its idea in the New Testament is evidently of one who intervenes to act between parties, who cannot, for some reason, act with each other directly. Thus, Moses was (Gal. iii : 19) the mediator of the Theocratic cove- nant. But in this, he was no more than interminciiis. Christ's mediation included far more, as will appear when we prove His three offices of prophet, priest and king; which are here assumed.

No mediator was necessary in the Covenant of Works

,,n ,.T , , . ^ between God and angels, or God and Adam ;

Wliy Needed m Cove- , • c w ^ ^\ ^\

nant of Grace? because, in untallen creatures, there was noth-

ing to bar direct intercourse between them and God. Hence the Scripture presents no evidence of Christ's performing any mediatorial function for them. On the con- trary the Bible implies always, that Christ's offices were under- taken, because men were sinners. Matt, i : 21 ; Is. liii ; Jno. iii : 16. But, man being fallen, the necessity of Christ's medi- ation appears from all the moral attributes of God's nature; His truth, (pledged to punish sin,) His justice, (righteously and necessarily bound to requite it,) His goodness, (concerned in the wholesome order of His kingdom,) and His holiness, (in- 464

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 465

trinsically repellent of sinners). So also, man's enmity, evil conscience and guilty fear, awakened by sin, call, though not so necessarily, for a mediator.

It has been objected that this argument represents God's will as under a constraint; for else what hindered His saving man by His mere will? And that it dishonours His wisdom by making Him go a roundabout way to His end, subjecting His Son to many humiliations and pangs. The answer is : the necessity was a moral one, proceeding out of God's own volun- tary perfections. Note. To sustain our argument we must assert that God's mere will is not the sole origin of moral distinctions. See Lect. x : on that point.

Against the Jews we assert that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and Mediator of this Covenant. Of the01dTettament!°'^° ^" argument SO comprehensive, and contain- ing so many details, only the general struc- ture can be indicated. In this argument the standard of authoritative reference assumed is the Old Testament, which the orthodox Jew admits to be inspired. (As for the Rationalistic, they must first be dealt with as other skeptics.) Second. In this argument no other authority is claimed for the New Testa- ment in advance, than that it is an authentic narrative. As such, it is substantiated by the profane and Jewish history. We then make two heads :

The promised Mediator of the Old Testament must have , , ^ , ^. already come. For the time has passed.

is gss^5""" ""' ^""'' (See Gen. xlix : lO ; Dan. ix : 24-27). He was to come while the second temple was standing. (Hag. ii : 6-9 ; Mai. iii : 1-3). He was to come while the Jewish polity subsisted ; (Gen. xlix : 10,) and while Jerusalem was still the capital of that theocracy. (Hag. ii : 6- 9 ; Is. ii : 3 ; Ixii : i, &c.) This polity and city have now been overwhelmed for nearly 1,800 years : so that the very ability to give genealogical evidence of the birth of Christ from David's stock is now utterly gone ! The Messiah's coming was to be signalized by the cessation of types. (Dan. ix : 27). Last : the Messiah's coming was to be marked by the accession of multitudes of Gentiles to the religion of the Old Testament, (See Is. ii : 3 ; xlii : 1-6 ; xlix : 6 ; Ix : 3, &c.)

Jesus of Nazareth is the Person; because all the qualities and incidents foretold in the Old Testament, thi appoS Traits.''' Wonderfully tally with Him and His life. (See Acts iii : 18.) The strength of the argument is in the completeness of this correspondence. In fairly estimating this proof, reference must be made to the doc- trine of probabilities. The occurrence of one predicted trait in a person would prove nothing. The concurrence of two would not be a demonstration; because that concurrence might be fortuitous. But, when three independent and predicted trait.-- 30*

466 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

concurred, the proof would greatly strengthen ; because the likelihood that chance could account for all three, is diminished, in a multiplying ratio. So, as the number of coincident, pre- dicted traits increases, the evidence mounts U23, by a multiplying ratio, towards absolute certainty. Jesus, then, answers the pro- phetic description in the time of His birth. (See above.) In the place ; Micah. v : 2. In His nativity of a virgin ; Is. vii : 14. In His forerunner; Mai. iii : i, &c. In His lineage; Gen. iii : 15, xviii : 18, xlix : lO; Is. xi : i ; Ps. cxxxii : ii ; Is. ix : 7, &c. In His preaching ; Is. Ixi : 1-3. In His miracles ; Is. XXXV : 5-6. In His tenderness and meekness ; Is, xlii : 3. In the circumstances of His end, viz.. His entry into Jerusalem ; Zech. ix : 9. Betrayal; Zech. xi : 12, 13. Rejection and con- tempt ; Is. liii : 3. Death ; liii : 8. Mockings therein ; Ps. xxii : 8. Vinegar; Ps. Ixix : 21. Piercing; Zech. xii : 10. Yet no bones broken ; Ps. xxxiv : 20. Death with malefactors ; Is. liii : 9. Honourable burial ; Is. liii : 9. Resurrection ; Ps. xvi : 9, 10; Ixviii 18. Spiritual effusions , Joel, ii : 28. Again: the Messiah of the Old Testament was to have a wondrous union of natures, offices and destinies, Avhich was mysterious to the Old Testament saints, and absurd to modern Jews ; yet was wonderfully realized in Jesus. He was to be God, (Ps. ii : 7 ; Is. ix : 6) ; yet man, (Is. ix : 6.) The history of Jesus, taken with His words, shows Him both human and divine. The Mes- siah was to be both priest and victim. (Ps. ex ; Is. liii.) He vvas to be an outcast, (Is. liii,) and a king, (Ps. ii.) So was Jesus. He was to conquer all people, (Ps. xlv and Ixxii : iio); yet, without violence. (Is. xlii : 3 ; Ps. xlv : 4.) He was to combine the greatest contrasts of humiliation and glory. These contrasts are so hard to satisfy in one Person (to all unbelieving Israel it seems impossible,) that when we find them meeting in Jesus, it causes a very strong evidence to arise, that He is the Mediator.

The doctrine of the constitution of Christ's person, is

TT ^ ^: TT ■ purely one of Revelation, and involves a 3. HypostaUc Union. ^ / ^ rj.. ... ^\ . i

mystery (i Tmi. ni : 16,) as great, perhaps, as that of the Trinity itself. But though inexplicable, it is not incredible. The nature of the scriptural argument by which this twofold nature in one person is established, is analogous to that establishing a Trinity in unity. The text nowhere defines the doctrine in one passage, as fully as we assert it. But our doctrine is a necessary deduction from three sets of Scriptural assertions. First. Jesus Christ was properly and literally a man. (See, e. g., Jno. i : 14; Gal. iv : 4; Jno, i : 51 ; Is. ix : 6 ; Heb. ii:i7; Matt, iv : 2 ; Luke ii : 40, 52; Matt, viii : 24 ; Mark xiii : 32 ; Jno. xi : 35 ; Matt, xxvi : ^y, &c.) Second. Christ is also literally and properly divine. (See, e. g., Jno. i : I ; Rom. ix : v i- John v : 20 ; Is. ix : 6 ; Phil, ii : 6 ; Col. ii : 9 ; Heb. i : 3; I Tim. iii : 16, &c.) Yet this Man-God is one and

OF LFXTURES IN THEOLOGY. 46/

the same ; in proof of which we need only allude to the fact, that in every text speaking of Him, oneness of person, and personal attributes, are either asserted or implied of Him. In many passages the same proposition asserts both natures in one person, (e. g., Jno. iii : 13 ; i Tim. iii : 16.)

To Socinians, and other errorists, these passages seem con- tradictory, because being unwilling to admit the "incarnate mystery," they insist on explaining away one class of them. The true explanation is, that both are true, because of the hypostatic union. By these means such seeming paradoxes are to be explained, as those in Mark xiii : 32, compared with John V : 20 ; Matt, xi : 27, &c. The first of these verses asserts that even the Son does not know the day and hour when the earth and heavens shall pass away. The others ascribe omniscience to Him. The explanation (and the only one) is that Christ in His human nature has a limited knowledge, and in His divine nature, an infinite knowledge.

The opinions of Gnostics are sufficiently narrated by Hill,

{Joe cit.) As they have no currency in Christ?Pers^n!°'^ modern times, I will content myself with

briefly reminding you of the distinction between the other Gnostics and those called Docetai. Both par- ties concurred in regarding matter as the source of all moral evil. Hence, they could not consistently admit the resurrec- tion and glorification, either of the saints or of Jesus' body. The Docetai, therefore, taught that Christ never had a literal human body ; but only a phantasm of one, on which the malice of His persecutors was spent in vain. The others taught that the Aion, who they supposed constituted Christ's superior nature, only inhabited temporarily in the man Jesus, a holy Jew constituted precisely as other human beings are ; and that, at the crucifixion, this Aion flew away to heaven, leaving the man Jesus to suffer alone.

The historical events attending the Nestorian controversy,

and the personal merits of Nestorius, I shall view.^ ^^ on an ^ot discuss. The system afterwards known as

Nestorianism was apprehended by the Catholic Christians, as by no means a trivial one, or a mere logomachy about the deoToxo:;. The true teacher of the doctrinal system was rather Theodore of Mopuestia, (a teacher of Nestorius) than the lat- ter prelate. In his hands, it appears to be a development of Pelagianism, which it succeeded in date, and an application to the constitution of Christ's person of the erroneous doctrines of man's native innocence. Theodore set out from opposition . to Apollinaris, who taught that the divine Reason in Christ sub- stituted a rational human nature, leaving Christ only a material and animal nature on the human side. According to Theodore, Christ is a sort of impersonated symbol of mankind, first as striving successfully against trial, and second, as rewarded with

468 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

glory for this struggle. He supposed Christ the Man to exer- cise a self-determining power of will, which, he taught, is nec- essary to moral merit in any man. Christ, the man, then, began His human career, with the Word associated and strengthening His human nature. As Christ the man resisted trial and ex- hibited His devotion to duty in the exercise of His self- determination. He was rewarded by more full and intimate communications of divine indwelHng, until His final act of devotion was rewarded with an ascension, and full communica- tion of the Godhead. The process in each gracious soul' offers an humble parallel. The indwelling of God the Word in Jesus, is not generically unlike that of the Holy Ghost in a saint : but only closer and stronger in degree. There are, indeed, three grades of this one kind of union, first, that of the Holy Ghost, in sanctification ; second, that of the same person, in inspira- tion ; third, that of the Word in Christ. And the Nestorians preferred rather to speak of the last, as a aoidczca than a kvioac::^ the preferred term of Cyril.

This view seemed to involve two Pelagian errors ; first, that ^ . , ^ grace is bestowed as the reward of man's

Doct trinal Conse--ti. • r 1 /• ^ ■

quences. right exercise 01 moral powers, (m his own

self-determined will,) instead of being the gratuitous cause thereof; and second, that inasmuch as the human purity of the man Jesus went before, and procured the divine indwelling, it is naturally possible for any other man to be perfect, in advance of grace. Again, from the separation of the nexus between the two natures in Christ, there seemed to the Catholics to be a necessary obscuring of the communica- tion of attributes ; so that Christ's sacrifice would no longer be divine and meritorious enough to cover infinite guilt. And thus would be lost the fundamental ground of His substitution for us. The whole scheme goes rather to make Christ incarnate rather a symbolical exemplar of the work of God in a believer, than the proper redeeming purchase and Agent thereof Its tendencies, then, are Socinian.

The Alexandrine theologians generally leaned the other way. Cyril was fond of quoting from the u yc lan lew. great Athanasius ; that while " he allowed Christ was the Son of God, and God, according to the spirit, but son of man, according to the flesh ; but not two natures and one son ; the one to be worshipped and the other not ; but one nature of God the Word incarnated, and to be worshipped by single worship along with His flesh." They loved to assert the kvioac^ (unification) of the natures, rather than the ao'^difzia (or conjunction,) of Theodore. They preferred to conceive of Christ as so clothing Himself with human nature, as to assim- ilate it, by a species of subsumption, with His divinity. Hence the error of Eutyches was prepared ; that while the mediatorial person was constituted from two natures, it existed

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 469

only in one, the divine. This error is as fatal to a proper con- ception of Christ's mediatorial work, as the Nestorian. B)' really destroying the humanity in Christ, from the moment of His birth, it gives us a Redeemer who has no true community of nature with us ; and so, does not render a human obedience, nor pay the human penalty in our room and stead. The creed of Chalcedon, intermediate between these two extremes, is undoubtedly the scriptural one, as it has been adopted by all orthodox churches, ancient and modern, and is the basis of the propositions of the Westminster Assembly on this point. You have these symbols within }-our reach ; and I shall not here repeat them.

For Orthodox creed of Chalcedon, see Mosheim, vol. i, p. ^ , , ,,. 366. For our own, see Confession of Faith,

Orthodox Views. 1 o c _ t-i • j ^ • 1 • ^^

cli. b, § 2. Inis doctrme, however inexplic- able, is not incredible ; because it is no more mysterious than the union of two substances, spirit and body, into one human person, in ourselves. Yet, who is not conscious of his own per- sonality ? That the infinite Creator should assume a particular relation to one special part of His creation, the man Jesus, is not impossible, seeing He bears intimate relations (e. g., as providential upholder,) to all the rest. That an infinite spirit should enter into personal union with a man, is surely less mys- terious than that a finite spirit should constitute a personal union with a body ; because the infinite and almighty possesses, so to speak, more flexibility to enter into such union ; and because the intimate union of spirit to spirit, is less mysterious than that of spirit with body. (A perfect analogy is not asserted.)

This Hypostatic union is the cornerstone of our redemp- . ^, . tion. The whole adaptation of the Media-

Hypostatic Union . • 1 . •. 11 ,

ground of the Efficacy torial person to its work depends on it, as of Christ's work, will be shown in the discussion of heads 5th, ^J'ashe'd^'' objection ^^^^ -pj^g general result of the Hypostatic union is stated well in the Confession of Faith, Ch. 8, § 7, last part. This is that xor^wuia couoijAtco)^ which we hold, in common with the early Fathers, repudiating the Lutheran idea of the attributes of Divinity being literally conferred on the humanity; which is absurd and impossible. Apt instances oi this '/.ocvcovi a may be seen in John iii : 13; Acts xiii : 1 5, xx : 28, xvii : 3 1 ; Mark ii : 10 ; Gal. iv : 4 ; and Rom. i: 17, or iii: 21; i Cor. u: 8. Hence, it is, that Mediatorial acts performed in virtue of either nature, have all the dignity or worth belonging to the Mediatorial person as made up of both natures. Socinians do, indeed, object : that inasmuch as only the creature could, in the nature of things, be subjected to the law, and to penalty, the active and passive obedience of Christ have, after all, only a creature worth ; and it is a mere legal fiction, to consider them as possessed of the infinite worth of a divine nature, since the divine nature did not especially render

470 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

them. The answer is : The person possessed of a divine nature, rendered them. If the Socinian would honestly admit the per- sonal union as a thing which (though inscrutable) is real and literal, his objection would be relinquished. For then, many- analogies of human persons (not perfect indeed, applicable fairly) would show that this xocpcoi/ia is not unnatural even. We shall see that the common sense and conscience of men always estimate the acts and sufferings of a united person (constituted of two natures) according to the dignity of the higher nature, to whichever of them those acts or sufferings may specially belong ; e. g. There are many bodily affections, as appetite, pain, which we characterize as distinctively cor- poreal; and yet, had not our bodies souls in them, these affec- tions could have no place. Why then is it incredible, that the divine substance in the Medatorial person should be the ground of a peculiar value in the human sufferings of that person ; though in strictness of speech, the divine could not be the seat of the suffering ? Again, corporeal sufferings of martyrs have a moral value, which can only be attributed to the fact that those suffering men were not brutes, but spiritual and moral beings ; while yet the soul may have been unconscious of the pangs, through spiritual joy, or other cause. I argue, also, from the fact, that moral character is given to merely physical acts of men, because of the character of the volition prompting those acts. Now, I pray, did not the will of the Aoyoc prompt all the acts of active and passive obedience performed by the human nature? If when my bones and muscles in my arm go through identically the same functions, with the same stick, to beat a dangerous dog, and to beat my friend, one physical act has the spiritual character of lawfulness and the other physic- ally identical act has the spiritual character of sinfulness,, because of the concern of my volition in them, why should it be thought a thing incredible, that the human sufferings of Christ should have a divine character, when prompted by the volition of the divine nature in His person? And is not the bodily pain of a man more important than that of a dog? It is enough, however, to show that the infinite dignity of Christ's divine nature is, in Scripture, given as ground of the infinite value of that work. See Heb. ix : 13, 14, vii : 16, 24; John iii : 16; I Pet. i: 18, 19; Ps. xl : 6; Heb. x : 5 — 14.

4. The old doctrine of the Reformed Churches asserted not only the actual sinlessness, which none but violent infidels impugn, but the impeccability of our Redeemer. In recent days, some of whom better things should have been expected, deny the latter. They concede to the God-man the posse non peccare: but deny to Him, or at least to the humanity, the non posse peccare. Their plea is in substance, that a being must be peccable in order to experience temptation, to be merito- rious for resisting it, and to be an exemplar and encouragement

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 47 1

to US, who are tempted. Thus argue Ullman, Farrar, the author of " Ecce Deus," Dr. Schaff, and even Dr. Hodge ; while Dr. Dorner, in his " History of Protestant Theol.," revives the Nestorian and Pelagian doctrine, of a meritorious growth or progress of Christ's humanity from peccability to impecca- bility, by virtue of the holy use of His initial contingency and selfdetermination of will.

Now, none will say that the second Person, as eternal Word, was, or is peccable. It would seem then, that the trait can only be asserted of the humanity. But, 1st, It is the unan- imous testimony of the Apostles, as it is the creed of the Church, that the human nature never had its separate person- ality. It never existed, and never will exist for an instant, save in personal union with the Word. Hence, (a.) Since only a Person can sin, the question is irrelevant ; and (b.) Since the humanity never was, in fact, alone, the question whether, if alone, it would not have been peccable, like Adam, is idle. Second : It is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin ; for this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error. In the God-man " dwells the fullness of the God-head bodily," Col, ii : 9 ; So, i : 19. Third, this lower nature, upon its union with the Word, was imbued with the full influences of the Holy Ghost. Ps. xlv : 7 ; Isaiah xi : 2, 3 ; Ixi : i, 3 ; Luke iv : 21 ; and iv : I ; Jno. i : 32 ; iii : 34. Fourth, Christ seems to assert his own impeccability. Jno. xiv : 30. " Satan cometh and hath nothing in me," So Paul, 2 Cor. v : 21, Christ "knew no sin;" and in Heb. xiii : 8. "Jesus Christ is the same yes- terday, to-day and forever." Jno. x : 36. " The Father hath sanctified and sent Him in the world." Fifth : If this endow- ment of Christ's person rose no higher than a posse noii peccare, it seems obvious that there was a possibility of the failure of God's whole counsel of redemption. For, as all agree, a sin- ning sacrifice and intercessor could redeem no one. There must have been then, at least a decretive necessity, that all his actions should be infallibly holy.

The pretext for imputing peccability to the Redeemer has been explained : it only remains to prove it groundless. He was certainly subjected to temptation, and was, in a sense, thus qualified to be a perfect example to and sympathizer with us, in our militant state. But this consists with his impeccability. These writers seem to think that if, in the hitherto sinless will of Jesus, there had been no contingency and self-determination when He came to be tempted, He could have had no actual realization of spiritual assaults, and no victory. Does not this amount to teaching that a rudiment at least of " concupiscence" in Him was necessary to this victory and merit. Then it would follow that we shall hold, with Pelagius, that concupiscence is not ^m. per se\ for that cannot be ^m. per se, which is essential to

4/2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

right action, under a given condition assigned the responsible agent by God's own providence.

In fact, the supposed stress of our opponents' plea is dis- solved, when we make the obvious distinction between the act of intellection of the natural desirableness seen in an object, and a spontaneous appetency for it apprehended as unlawful. It is the latter which is the sin of concupiscence. The former is likely to take place in any intellect, simply as a function of in- telligence, just in proportion to the extent of its cognitive povv-er, and is most certain to take place, as a simple function of intelligence, as to all possible objects, in the infinite mind of the holy God ! So far as intellectual conception goes, none conceive so accurately as God, just how "the pleasures of sin which are but for a season," appear to a fallible creature's mind. To say that God feels the sin of " concupiscence " would be blasphemy. This distinction shows us how an impeccable being ma}" be tempted. While the human will of Jesus was rendered absolutely incapable of concupiscence by the indwelling of the Godhead and its own native endowment ; He could doubtless represent to Himself mentally precisely how a sinful object affjcts both mind and heart of His imperfect people. Does not this fit Him to feel for and to succor them ? And is His victory over temptation the less meritorious, because it is complete ? Let me explain. We will suppose that the idea of a forbidden object is suggested (possibly by an evil spirit,) before the intelr lect of a Christian. One of two things may happen. By the force of indwelling sin the presence of that idea in conception may result in some conscious glow of appetency towards the object ; but the sanctified conscience is watchful and strong enough to quench this heat before it flames up into a wrong volition. This perhaps is the usual case with Christians. And there, our opponents would exclaim, is the wholesome self-dis- cipline ! There is the creditable and ennobling warfare against sin ! Let us now suppose the other result ; which, in the hap- pier hours of eminent saints, doubtless follows sometimes : that when the tempting idea is presented in suggestion, the con- science is so prompt, and holy desires so pre-occupy the mind, that the thought is ejected before it even strikes the first spark of concupiscence ; that the entire and immediate answer of the heart to it is negative. Is not this still more creditable than the former case? Surely ! If we approved the man in the former case because the state of his soul's moral atmosphere was such, that the evil spark went out before it set fire to the stream of action ; we should still more approve, in the latter case, where the atmosphere of the soul was such that the spark of evil was not lighted at all. Will any one say, that here, there was no temptation. This is as though one should say, there was no battle, because the victory was complete and the victor un- scathed.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 473

Those who make this difficulty about Christ's impeccabihty seem to discard another truth, which is a corner-stone of our system. This is the consistency of a real free agency with an entire certainty of the will. They argue that unless Jesus were free in his rejection, of temptation, He would have wrought no moral victory. This is true. But they wish us to infer there- from, that because His will was free, it must have been mutable. This deduction would be consistent only in a Pelagian. Every Calvinist knows that a holy will may be perfectly free, and yet determined with absolute certainty, to the right. Such is God's will. " He cannot lie." Yet He speaks truth freely. The sin- ner presents the counterpart case, when " his eyes are full of adultery, and he cannot cease from sin." Yet is this sinner free in continuing his course of sin and rejecting the monitions of duty. This case sufficiently explains, by contrast, the impec- cability of Jesus. He has every natural faculty which, in Adam's case, was abused to the perpetration- of his first sin. But they were infallibly regulated by, what Adam had not, a certain, yet most free, determination of His dispositions to holi- ness alone. It is useless to argue, whether Jesus could have sinned if He had chosen. It was infallibly certain that He would not choose to sin. This was the impeccability we hold.

The question, whether Christ performs the functions of ^ ^, . ,. Mediator in both natures is fundamental.

K. Does Christ medi- y^ • i. i- •- .1 .l ..i 1

ate in both Natures ? Komanists hmit them to the human nature, in order to make more plausible room for human mediators. They plead such passages as Phil, ii : 7, 8 ; I Tim. ii : 5, and the dialectical argument, that the divinity being the offended party, it is absurd to conceive of it as medi- ating between the offender and itself.

Now, it must be distinguished, that ever since the incar- nation, the Log-OS may perform functions of incommunicable divinity, inalienable to Him as immutable ; such as sitting on the throne of the universe and possessing incommunicable attributes ; in which the humanity can no more have part than in that creative work, which Christ performed before His incar- nation. So, likewise, the humanity performed functions, in which it is not necessary to suppose the Logos had any other concern than a general providential one ; such as eating, sleep- ing, drinking. But these were not a part of the Mediatorship. We assert that, in all the Mediatorial acts proper, both natures To TTooaco-Qv deav&rtco-ov act concurrently, according to their peculiar properties. This we prove, ist, »by the fact, that in Christ's priestly work, the divine nature operated and still ope- rates, as well as the human. See i Cor. ii : 8 ; Heb. ix : 14 ; John X : 18. Even in this work of suffering and dying, see how essential the concurrent actions -of the divine nature were! Else, there would have been none of the autocracy as to His own life, necessary for His vicarious work ; nor would there

474 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

have been strength to bear an infinite penalty in one day. Only the Omniscient can intercede for all. Hence, we argue a forti- ori, that if His divinity concurred in His priestly work, the part usually supposed most irrelevant to deity, much more does it concur in His prophetic and kingly. See Matt, xi : 27, xxviii : 18. 2d. If Christ does not perform His Mediatorial work in His divine nature as well as His human. He could not have been in any sense the Mediator of Old Testament saints ; because their redemption was completed before He was incar- nate. Did Romanists attend to the fact, that it is the very design and result of the Covenant of Grace, that the persons of the Trinity should act " economically," in their several offices of redemption, they would not have raised the inconsistent objec- tion about the Godhead's propitiating the Godhead. The Son, having become man's Surety, now acts economically and offi- cially for him, in his stead propitiating the Father, who officially represents the majesty of the offended Trinity. Besides, unless the Romanists will assert not only two wills, but these two in opposition, in the Mediatorial person, the divine will of God the Son must, on their scheme, have concerned itself with propiti- ating God ; the same difficulty !

One remark applies to all His mediatorial functions also ; that the will of both natures concurred in them.

The demands of Christ's mediatorial work required that Christ should be proper and very man. Man- Why must the Medi- i^ind had fallen, and was conscience-struck,

a,tor be IVltin ' .

hostile, and fearful towards God. Hence it was desirable that the Daysman should appear in his nature as his brother in order to encourage confidence, to allure to a familiar approach, and quiet guilty fears. To such a being as sinful man, personal intercourse with God would have been intolerably dreadful ; (Gen. iii : 8 ; Ex. xx : 19,) and even an angel would have appeared too terrible to his fears.

Again. The Bible assures us that one object gained by the incarnation of Christ, was fuller assurance of His sympathy, by His experimental acquaintance with all the woes of our fallen condition. (Heb. ii : 17, 18 ; iv : 15 to v : 2.) Theexperi- ence of every Christian under trial of affliction, testifies to the strength of this reasoning by the consolation which Christ's true humanity gives Him. It is very true that the Son, as omnis- cient God, can and does figure to Himself conceptions of all possible human trials, just as accurate as experience itself; but His having experienced them in human nature enables our weak faith to grasp the consolation better.

Another purpose of God, in clothing our Redeemer with human nature, was to leave us a perfect human example. The importance and efficacy of teaching by example, need not be unfolded here. (See i Pet. ii : 21 ; Heb. xii : 2, &c.)

In the fourth place, Christ's incarnation was necessary, in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 475

order to establish a proper basis for that legal union between Him and His elect, which should make Him bearer of their imputed guilt, and them partakers of His imputed righteous- ness and of His exaltation. (See i Cor. xv: 21.) It was nec- essary that man's sin should be punished in the nature of man, in order to render the substitution more natural and proper. (Rom. viii : 3.) Had the deity been united with some angelic, or other creature, the imputation of man's sin to that Person, and its punishment in that foreign nature would have appeared less reasonable. (See Heb. ii : 14-16.) So, likewise, the obedi- ence rendered in another nature than man's, would not have been so reasonable a ground for raising man's race to a share in the Mediator's blessedness.

And this leads us to add, last, that a created nature was absolutely essential to the Mediator's two works, of obeying in man's stead, and suffering for his guilt. For the obedience, no other nature would have been so appropriate as man's. And none but a creature could come under law, assume a subject position, and work out an active righteousness. God is above law, being Himself the great law-giver. For the other vicari- ous work, suffering a penalty, not only a created, but a corporeal nature is necessary. Angels cannot feel bodily death, and brutes could not experience spiritual ; but both are parts of the penalty of sin. The divine nature is impassible, and unchange- able in its blessedness. Hence, Heb. x : 5 ; ix : 22, &c.

It is of the highest importance to prove that the media- torial offices could not be performed without must l^e God. ^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ divine nature. (See Is. xlv : 22 ; Jer. xvii : 5-7, xxiii : 6.) Because this is one of the most overwhelming arguments against Arians and Socini- ans. We assert that a purpose to save elect men by a media- torial plan, being supposed in God, the very necessities of the case required that this mediator should be very and proper God. But as this was substantially argued in Lect. xviii, when proving the divinity of the Holy Ghost and the Son, the student is referred to that place.

But the sixth question of our Syllabus raises a point in 6 Is Christ's Prophet- this direction, which requires fuller explana- ic work essential, or, tion. The scope of the Socinian system is to as Socinians say, only find a common religion, including the fewest possible essential elements. Hence, they like to represent, that virtuous Pagans may belong to this com- mon religion, holding the doctrines of Natural Theology. The consequence is, that the Socinians, while speaking many hand- some things of Jesus Christ as a messenger from God, still con- cur with other Deists and infidels, in depreciating the necessity of Revelation. They say that the Scriptures are valuable, but not essential. We are thus led again to the old question of the necessity of revelation.

47^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Let US not assert this on the usual partial grounds. The case is too often put by our friends as though argmiieni. conected. ° ^^^^ ^^^^ alone necessitated a revelation ; the effects of sin in blinding the mind and con- science are too exclusively mentioned. Thus, there is an im- plied admission that a revelation is, in man's case, an exceptional expedient, caused by the failure of God's general plan. Thus, the objection is suggested, which Socinians and other enemies of inspiration have not failed to put in form ; and which many of us are inclined perhaps to feel, as though the idea of a reve- lation were unnatural, and hence not probable. The cavil is, that the analogy of all creation discloses this plan : Our wise and good God, in creating each order of sentient beings, sur- rounded them with all the appointed conditions for their well- being, by the established course of nature. Having made fishes for the water, He made water for the fishes ; the grass is for oxen, and the oxen for grass ; the birds for the air, and the air for the birds. Every order, by living within the natural conditions provided for it, secures its appropriate end. But according to the orthodox, man, the noblest, the rational crea- ture, cannot fulfil the ends of his being, immortal blessedness, by his natural means. A supernatural expedient must be found, against the general analogy ; or else man's existence is a fright- ful failure. This, they urge, is unnatural, discreditable to God, and improbable.

Now I meet it by asserting that, to make a rational crea-

„ , . ture dependent on a rev^elation of God for

Revelation necessary tt- • -^ i ir • , ,

to Holy Creatures. ^^s Spiritual welfare, IS not unnatural, or

extraordinary : but is, for all spiritual crea- tures, the universal and strictly natural condition. It does not arise out of man's sin only ; the truth holds as well of angels, and all other rational creatures, if there are others. We must remember that none originally had God in their debt, to assure their holiness and bliss; but were naturally under this relation, bound to obey Him perpetually ; free from evil as long as they did so ; but subject to His wrath whenever they sinned. Now holy creatures were not infallible, nor omniscient. Their wills were right and free, but not indefectible. Bound to an unend- ing career of perfect obedience, they would have been to all eternity liable to mistake, and sin and death. Now, when a finite wisdom and rectitude are matched against an infinite series of duties to be done, of choices to be made, each natur- ally implying some possibility of a wrong choice, that possi- bility finally mounts up from a probability to a moral certainty, that all would some day fail. How, then, could an angel, or holy Adam, inherit immutable blessedness forever? Only by drawing direct guidance from the infallible, infinite Mind. Thus we see that the enjoyment of its appropriate revelation by each order, is the necessar}^ condition of its well-being ; a

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 47/

condition as natural, original, and universal as its own moral nature and obligations. If Gabriel had not his revelation he would not be an 'elect angel' Do I mean a written document? Do I speak of parchment and ink ? No ; but of that which is the essence of a Revelation, a direct communication from the infinite Mind, to instruct the finite.

Thus we may, if we choose, admit the analogy which the Socinian claims, and find it wholly against om^bus''^'°'' ''°' ^''' ^^i"^- Our Bible is not an exceptional provi- dence ; it is in strict accordance with God's method towards all reasonable creatures. If our race had none, this would be the fatal anomaly against us.

SYLLABUS

,7. Is there any other mediator between God and man, than Jesus Christ? (Against Papists).

For Popish view, see Council of Trent. Session xxv. Cat. Rom. pt. iii, ch. 2, Qu. 4-7, pt. iv, ch. 6. Bellarmine's Controversies. Dens' Theol. Daniel's Thesaurus Hymn, Vol. i, p. 241, Vol. 2, p. 133. Missale Romantim passim. Turrettin Loc. xiv, Qu. 4. Ridgley Qu. 36. Essay (15th) on Romanism, Presb. Bd. Dick Lect. 59.

8. How was Christ inducted into His office ?

Dick, Lect. 54. Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 6, and Loc. xiii, Qu. 12. Ridgley, Qu. 41, 42.

9. How many offices does Christ fulfil as Mediator ; and why these ? Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 5. Dick, Lect. 54. Calv. Inst. bk. ii, ch. 15. Ridg- ley, Qu. 43. Conf. of Faith, ch. 8.

10. Prove that Christ is Prophet. Under how many Periods and Modes did He fulfil this office ?

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 7. Dick, Lect. 54, 55. Ridgley, Qu. 43.

' I ^HE Apostle Paul teaches us, (i Tim. ii : 5,) that as there is but one God, there is only "one mediator between God 7. Christ only Medi- ^^^ man, the man Christ Jesus." Rome seeks ator. Rome's Argu- to evade this and similar testimonies, by speak- ment for Contrary. jj^g ^f ^ .primary and a secondary mediation, reserving the first exclusively to Christ. The activity of angels and dead saints as secondary mediators, Rome argues, first, from the benevolence and affection of these pure spirits. This kindness we daily experience at the hands of the saints while alive;" and the Saviour (Luke xv : 7,) seems to ascribe similar feelings to the angels. The Church believes that the dead saints retain a local interest in the places and people which they loved while living ; and she thinks that Dan. x : 13, teaches the angels, as ministers of God's providence, have their districts,

4/8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and even their individuals, (Matt, xviii : lo,) whom they serve and watch. Second. Rome urges that numerous cases exist in which the mediatorial intervention of one saint for another occurs, in the Bible. Of this the most obvious instance is the requesting of the brethren's prayers (e. g., i Thess. v : 25 ; 2d Thess. iii : i,) and this case alone, Rome thinks, would be enough to rebut the Protestant objections that such interces- sion interferes with the mediatorial honours of Christ. But, say they, there are. numerous instances of more definite inter- vention, where the merit of a saint availed for other men ex- pressly ; or where, (better still,) the pardon of men was suspended on the efforts of some eminently meritorious saint in their behalf. (See Gen. xx : 7; xxvi : 5; i Kgs. xi : 12, et passim ; Job. xlii : 8 ; Luke vii : 3-6. And they assert the actual intercession of angels in heaven is taught. (Gen. xlviii : 16 ; Rev. V : 8, or viii : 3.)

Rome argues also, reciprocally, that the worship of saints and angels implies their mediation ; because the only thing for which we can petition them, consistently with theism, is their intercession. Hence all the rational and scriptural arguments in favor of saint-worship, are by inference, arguments in favor of their mediation. See, then, such considerations and such texts as these: God commands an appropriate reverence of teachers, magistrates, parents, kings. Can we believe that He intends no proportionable honor of these more beneficent and majestic beings ? Can it be wrong to ask their aid with Christ, when we should esteem it pious to ask the aid of Christian friends on earth? Surely these glorified creatures have not become less benevolent toward us, or less acceptable to Christ, by reaching heaven. Then see scriptural instances (Gen. xviii: 2-23 ; xix : i; xxxii : 26; Josh, v : 14.

The closing argument of Rome is from tradition, and the Apocrypha.

One valid reply, though the least one, is, that all such appeals to the mediation of the saints or angels in ^^ ^^^' heaven, are superstitions. As to dead saints,

the Scripture representation is, that they are effectually severed from all earthly relations, and are done with all earthly interests. Rev. xiv : 13. They "rest from their labors." i Tim. vi : 7. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." Isa. Ivii: 2. " He shall enter into peace; they shall rest in their beds." Eccles. ix : 6. "Neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." Job. iii : 17. "There the weary be at rest." xiv: 21. " His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not ; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." The sim- ple idea of asking a share in the prayers of dead friends, if it were all of the Romish doctrine, would be thus shown to be only foolish and superstitious ; for since we know we have no

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 479

access to them, our words are thrown away. It may be urged, that though this be true as to the dead saints, it may not hold as to the angels, who do have intercourse with earth, as they are "sent forth to minister to them who shaU be heirs of salva- tion." Our answer is, that the Scriptures only teach an inter- course on one side ; they may know some of our acts and needs ; we know nothing of their nearness or absence. So that, as to the angels likewise, this attempted intercourse is wholly unwarranted by Scripture, and therefore superstitious. But :

Second, in our ignorance of their nearness or absence, we can never know that they hear our plea for their inter- cession, without imputing to them divine attributes. This fact was briefly stated in our 31st Lecture. Thus the doctrine of their intercession is idolatrous in its tendencies, and a robbery of God. Especially is this true of the more popular gods and goddesses of the Romish pantheon, the Virgin, Peter, Gabriel ; to whom Romanists the world over are generally praying. They must have omnipresence to be with their votaries in vari- ous lands at the same time ; omniscience, to discriminate, understand and judge wisely of their varied requests; omnipo- tence, to bear the burden of care laid upon them ; infinite benevo- lence, to make them wiUing to bear so much care and take so much trouble for others ; and immutability, to be a secure reli- ance for the wants of a priceless soul. The poor subterfuge of the hypothesis of the saints' beholding all earthly affairs /;/ speculo Triiiitatis, has been exposed ; it only pretends to meet one of the points we have here made.

Third. Were the design of papists merely to seek a com- munion in the prayers of dead saints and angels, it would only be superstitious and idolatrous. But this does not at all sat- isfy them. The essential peculiarity of their doctrine is, that the mediatory access of these holy creatures is founded on their merits with God. This their divines expressly teach ; and the hymns to which we cited the student, expressly assert this element of doctrine. But it is expressly injurious to Christ, utterly false, and indeed impious. No one who comprehended the rudiments of either the Covenant of Works, or of that of Grace, would ever dream of making the supererogatory merit of an unfallen, much less of a fallen creature, a basis for an imputed righteousness. In that sense the creature cannot merit. Take the case of Abraham, Gen. xx : 7. The Romish argument is ruined by the fact that Abraham was himself "jus- tified by faith." If he was himself a sinner, accepted in the . righteousness of another, how could he have supererogatory merit to spare for a fellow-sinner? Job is mentioned, xlii : 8, as sacrificing for his erring friends ; Because he was righteous. But see the 6th verse, where Job avows his utter sinfulness. Surely, then he was not righteous in such a sense as to be a meritorious mediator. Job was directed to sacrifice for his

480 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

friends. What? Himself? No; but bullocks and rams, tpyical of the " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." This tells the whole story : that his intervention was ministerial, and not mediatorial. As to King David, i Kings xi :

12, compare David's own language, Ps. xxxii: i, 2. It is God's regard for His own gracious covenant with David, and His own fidelity, which leads Him to favour Solomon. David himself, although comparatively a faithful ruler, was indebted to God's mercy both in his personal and official capacities, for escaping condemnation. If Christ made full expiation for our sins, how can other intercessors be intruded without an insult to the suf- ficiency of His sacrifice and intercession? Is the plea this : that He intercedes with the Father ; while the lower mediators intercede with Him? I reply : Why may we not directly obey His gracious command: "Come unto Me, all ye that labour?" Does the same argument which persuades us to go to the Virgin to ask her Son to ask His Father to save us, also require us to seek another intermediary between us and Mary? If the Papist says "yes," to this question, then by the same argument we shall need still a second intermediary between us and the one who is to commend us to Mary ; and we have a ridiculous regressus, which may be endless ; we have to sro all around the world, in order to reach Christ. But if .a negative answer be given, then the Papist must answer this question : Why does Mary need an intermediary between us and her, less than Jesus does ? This implies that she is more benevolent and placable than Christ ! "But greater love hath no man than this that he lay down his life for his friends."

The student should know, that this theory of creature- mediation is not only condemned by the utter silence of the word and the express and implied assertion of truths incom- patible with it : but that it has been articulately examined and rejected in the Scriptures. That inspired refutation, as it is seen in the Epistle to the Colossians, furnishes us the best pos- sible argument. It is substantially our third argument. The Judaizing Gnostics were infesting the Colossian church with this very theory : that the saving work of Christ must be supple- mented by the intercession of some super-angelic beings ; (See Ch. ii : 18,) and by the practice of asceticism, (ii ; 21). The first of these innovations the Apostle meets, with admirable sagacity, by laying down a few indisputable, gospel-statements. Christ, the eternal Son of God, hath already made for us a sacrifice in His blood, so complete as to secure to believers a full justification and an actual translation into God's family, (i :

13, 15, 22). This our Priest is the Image of God, eternal, the creator and actual ruler of all creatures, including these very thrones and dominions proposed as angelic intercessors, (verse 16, 17,) so that instead of their guiding Him, He governs them : and they themselves derive their heavenly adoption (not indeed

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 48 1

from His sacrifice,) but from His ministerial providence, (verse 20). This Divine Christ is also human, (ii : 3-10,) so that He is as near akin to us as any advocate can be : just as truly our kinsman, as near by blood, as approachable, as tender, as it is possible for Peter or Paul, or Mary to be. Whatever love and beneficence these have, they received from Him. Thus He has in Himself all possible qualifications for the intercessory work ; all the higher (verses 3 and 9,) and all the softer and gentler. Hence, (verse 10,) the believer is " complete in Him." Christ so completely satisfies the demands of an intercessory work, that no room is left for any other intercessor ; even as His righteous- ness so satisfies the claims of law, that there is no room for any ritual or ascetic righteousness to procure fuller adoption. This, in a word, is the Apostle's argument. That Christ's priestly work is such, it is not possible that any other intercessory agency can be needed, or be added. The plea, that the Apostle discards the intercession of the Gnostic ceons, because they are imaginary beings, is of no avail ; because his argu- ment is evidently construed designedly, (see Ch. i : 16,) so as to hold, equally, whether the creatures invoked might be real, or not. In conclusion of this head, it should be noted, that the vital point in the popish theory is, that these creature-mediators have an imputable merit of their own, to plead for us. Hence the cases they cite, where Christians ask an interest in each others' prayers, are wholly inapplicable, and their citation is indeed, uncandid.

The question of angelic mediation may be easily disposed of. The only instances in which an angel is wor- M^diSd!^'''''"'^ "^"^'^ shipped, are those of the worship of the Angel of the Covenant, the eternal Word. Let the student examine all the cases of angel-worshp claimed by the Romanists, and he will find that each one is a worship of that Divine Person. We are referred to Rev. v : 8, and viii : 3, for instances of angelic mediation. In the first, the odours pre- sented by the four living creatures, and the four and twenty elders, are their own. They both, beyond doubt, symbolize the ransomed Church : (see verse 9,) and the prayers they present are simply their own. In Rev. viii ; 3, we assert that the great Angel, who takes the golden censer, and offers the incense, is Christ; the Angel of the Covenant again. It is objected that the Redeemer has already appeared in the scene, as " the Lamb in the midst of the throne." This is no valid objection to our exposition. The natures and functions of Christ are so glorious and full, that one symbol fails to exhaust them. Hence the multiplication of symbols for the same Divine Figure, even in the same scene, is not unusual in the prophets. The symbol of the Lamb represents Christ's humanity, the victim of justice, while that of the Angel conveys to us Christ the prophet, and intercessor, and king ; a priest upon his throne. There is, then.

482 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

no exegetical difficulty in receiving this angel as a symbol of Christ ; and the coherency of this view, with the whole passage, and the whole Scripture, every way recommends it.

In conclusion, the powerful demonstration which the Scrip- ture gives us against creature worship, is the strongest proof against creature mediation ; for if they mediated, they must be worshipped.

The Scripture testimony must hold the fifth, and crowning place. We have heard the Apostle assert, (i Tim. ii : 5,) that as there is one God, there is one Mediator, between God and men ; and that this is the Being who gave himself a ransom for all. As the words, " one God," doubtless express the exclusive unity of God, so we are bound to construe the connterpart words, " one Mediator," in the same way. And it is implied that He who mediates must have given the adequate ransom, on which to found His plea. So, our Saviour declares, (Jno. xiv : 6,) " No man cometh to the Father but by me," and Peter, (Acts iv : 12,) " There is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby ye must be saved." So, the words of Christ, (Jno. vi : 37,) " Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out," at least prove that any otlier intercessor is super- fluous. It is said, that affirmations do not prove the counter- part negative. But when we find the Scriptures full of such passages as Rom. viii : 34 ; Heb. viii : 25 ; i Jno. ii : i, 2, which all assert with emphasis that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Mediator ; and that there is an absolute silence throughout the Bible as to any other, even this proof is complete.

Feeble efforts are made to break the force of this testi- mony. To show that saints do make imputable merit for their brethren, Papists point us to Col. i : 24, where Paul claims that " he is filling up that which is behind of the sufferings of Christ, for his body's sake, which is the church." We reply that this construction makes the Apostle here teach precisely what he repudiates in i Cor. i : 13, " Was Paul crucified for you ? " The scope of his argument requires us to construe this question : Was Paul a propitiation for you ? Has Christ any rival to di- vide his credit or claim as the sole propitiation ? No. Paul was afterwads beheaded and Peter crucified. Shall we give so pre- posterous a sense to the argument that the opponent could, after these events, meet the apostolic negative with a flippant ' Yes ' and say : " Yes, both Paul and Peter have died for the Church, and so, Christ is now divided, and the threefold faction is legitimate." It is only the ministerial and exemplary features of Christ's sufferings, in which the Apostle claims a share in Colossians. In that sense, every true labourer and martyr is still furthering the work which Christ began. But His suffer- ings alone could be vicarious.

The attempt is made to escape the force of the places which assert the oneness of Christ's intercession, by saying that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 483

He is the only Mediator of Redemption ; saints and angels are Mediators of Intercession. On this subterfuge I remark : (a) t Tim. ii : 5, asserts the singleness of Christ's intercessory work first, and at least as pointedly as of His ransoming work, (b) Since intercession is grounded only in redemption by satisfac- tion, the two kinds of mediators must be one. (c) Romanists themselves undermine their own distinction by impiously ascribing to their creature-intercessors an imputable merit as the necessary ground of their influence with Christ.

The consequences of this doctrinal error give us the strong- est practical argument against it. It has been the means of thrusting Christ aside, out of the thoughts and affections of Pap- ists, until Mary and the saints attract a larger share of wor- ship than the Son of God. As the idea of creature-Mediators is virtually pagan, it has thrown an almost pagan aspect over the Romish countries.

The words Messiah, Christ, mean "Anointed," in allusion to the spiritual unction bestowed on Christ, w£n'''''' '^''°'''*^"^- This was appropriate to all His offices ; wit- ness the anointing of Aaron, Saul, David, Solomon, Elisha. The thing typified by the oil, was spiritual endowment ; and this was bestowed without measure on Christ. (See Ps. xlv : 2 ; Is. xi : 2 ; xlii : i ; Ixi : i, &c ; Matt, iii : 16 ; Jno. iii : 34 ; Acts x : 38, &c.) The seasons of this anointing were, not a journey into heaven during the forty days' tempta- tion— a notion unknown to Scripture, and moreover refuted by Luke ii : 46, 47, — but His birth and baptism especially. The immediate seat of these spiritual influences was His humanity. His divinity was already infinite, perfect and immutable. He is Himself a source of the Holy Ghost, as God. The consequence was, to make Him, not infinite as to His humanity, nor incapa- ple of progress, but perfectly holy, and wise, pure, zealous, faithful, &c., above all others. All forms of grace appropriate to a perfect man acted in Him, in such manners as were suit- able to His Person.

That Christ fulfils, as Mediator, the three offices of Prophet, Priest and King, is proved by this ThL, 2d' Why ? ' argument. We find these three offices pred- icated of Him in Scripture in a specific and pointed manner, while all other terms of function or service applied to Him as " Servant," " Elect," " Messenger," &c., are rather to be regarded as general appellatives. For the pro- phetic office, see Heb. i : i ; Is. xi : 2, xlii : i, 2, Ixi : i ; Deut. xviii : 15, with Acts iii : 22-26 ; Is. xlix : 6; John iv : 25. For the priestly, see Ps. ex : 4; Heb. viii : i, &c., passim ; i John ii : I. Kingly, Ps. ii : 6 ; Is. ix : ^, y \ Ps. ex : i ; Zech. vi : 12-14, &c., I Cor. i : 30, displays all three offices.

That the offices of Christ are these three, we prove again by showing in detail, that all His mediatorial works can be

484 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

referred to one or more of these three classes. All is either instructing, or atoning, or interceding, or conquering and ruling or several of them together. The necessity for these offices, (which we show) also proves it. Man lay under three evils — ignorance, guilt, rebellion. And redemption consists of three parts — announcing, purchasing and applying salvation.

The proof has already been presented, that Christ per- forms the office of a Prophet.

The Prophet is God's Spokesman, i^'']^^ either to enforce,

reveal or predict. Christ, in the highest sense, Wo°k^'lf;^rSagt did all. For definition of His prophetic

work, see Cat., Que. 24. The work of our Savior had three different stages, ist, from the fall to His bap- tism by John; 2d, during His personal ministry until His ascen- sion ; 3d, thence to the final consummation. During all these stages. He has carried on His prophetic work, by these agencies common to the three : His Revelation given to us by the hand of Prophets and Apostles : His Spirit applying that revelation, and giving understanding and love ; His providence, directing our conduct and the events happening us, including a constant, universal and particular control of our mental laws and states, as well as physical. (This trenches on His kingly powers). But, during the first stage, Christ acted as Prophet, in addition, by His theophanies, for which see Hengstenberg's Christol, vol. i, pp. 164-170, and His Prophets, see i Pet. i : 10, 11.

During the second stage, Christ literally fulfilled the work of a Prophet in His own person, by inculcating truths known, revealing truths, and predicting future events. During the last stage. He gave His Holy Ghost to Apostles and Evangelists, thus enduing their teachings with His own authority. See John xvi : 12-15 ; Acts i : 8 ; xv : 28 ; ii : 4 ; i Thess. i : 5.

Dick contrasts Christ's prophetic work with that of all

other Prophets, in its fullness, its perspicuity, H^Zt!;if'' (arising from His fuller endowments and

knowledge, as well as from a clearer dispen- sation), its giving realities instead of types, its authority, arising from His divinity, and its efficacy, arising from His divine power to send forth spiritual influences along with His word. But when we say Christ was fuller as a revealer, let us not fall into the Socinian's error, who, to make a nodus vindice digmis, while they deny Christ's vicarious work, teach that Chi ist not only developed, but made substantial additions to, and alterations in, the Old Testament. A perfect and holy God could not reveal a faulty code. See also Matt, v : 17 ; Mark xii : 31 ; Rom. xiii : 9. And if the pretended cases of alteration be examined, they will be. found supported by the teachings of the Old Testament.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Gen. xviii: 2-23

Lecture XLI SYLLABUS

11. Prove that Christ is truly a Priest. What the several Parts of a Priest's Functions ? What the Peeuliarities of Christ's priesthood ?

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 8, 9. Dick, Lect. 56. Anselm, Ctir Deus Homo, pt. i, ch. 12, and 13. Ridgley, Qu. 44, | i, 2. "The Atonement," by Rev. Hugh Martin, ch. 3. Hodge's Theo., vol. ii, pt. iii, ch. 6.

12. Prove against Socinians, &c., the Necessity of Satisfaction, in order to Remis- sion of Sin.

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 10, with Loc. iii, Qu. 19. Thornwell, Vol. ii, Art. 5. Dick, Lect. 56. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 3, \ i. Hodge's Theo., pt. iii (Vol. ii), ch. 7. Ridgley, Qu. 44, § 3. " Magee on Atonement.-' A. A. Hodge on Atone- ment, chs. 5, 6. Watson's Theo. Inst. ch. 19, bk. ii, ch. 8.

' I ^HE proof that Christ is a true and real Priest, would begin with texts such as Ps. ex : 4; Heb. v : 5 ; viii \ \, et pas- sim. Were there no Socinian evasion, these PriJst. ^^"'^ *^^ '^'"^ would end the debate. But their plea is that Peter (Epistle i, Ch. ii : 9), and John (Rev. i : 6, call Christians generally Priests. But since the name is thus applied to persons who only render to God the oblation of their thankful service and devotion, its application to Christ does not prove any more. Hence, they assert, it is vain for Calvinists to quote texts which call Christ a Priest, as proof that he was prop- erly so, in the strict sense of the Hebrew |m3 or Greek hpeu::

And they attempt to further their evasion by saying that Christ is a Priest only in heaven, where He performs the intercessory function. If they can gain assent to this, since there is no suf- fering in heaven, they effectually exclude Christ's proper sacri- fice and expiatory work. To meet these cunning subterfuges then, we must proceed farther, and show that Christ is called Priest in wholly another sense from believers, and that He liter- ally performs the two peculiar functions of that office — sacrifice and intercession.

This argument leads us to anticipate the evidences by which Christ's sufferings are shown to be truly vicarious. The points will therefore be briefly stated here. In Heb. v : I, we have an exact definition of a priest, as a person "ordained for men, from among whom he is taken, in things pertaining to God, that He may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." Such, we may add, is precisely the meaning attached to the word by all men, including pagans. The priestly office is a mediatorial one. Its necessity arises out of man's sin and guilt, which exclude him from immediate access to a holy God. The priest is the intermediary^ who goes for him. Hence, he must have a sacrifice with which to expiate sin and propitiate 'God ; and he must found his plea for his clients on this as the

485

486 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ransom price. No Jew, Pagan, or Christian (not perverted by Socinian views) ever conceived of a priest as anything else than this. But it is far more conclusive to say, that the Epistle, after this definition of a priest, immediately asserts that Christ was made our high priest. The subsequent chapters assert that He was formally and solemnly ordained to the office ; that He acted for others, and not for Himself in that office ; that He transacted for us with God ; and that He offered a vicarious sacrifice. These traits are conclusive of His real priesthood. He was appointed priest (Heb. vii : 20) with peculiar emphasis. He made His soul a sacrifice for sin by dying ; while Christians, when described as metaphorical priests, only make their ser- vices a thank-offering by living. See Rom. xii : i. That the Christian's oblation is only metaphorical, the apostle expresses by a beautiful paradox ; He is a " living sacrifice." But a sacrifice proper is a thing that dies ! It is a very strong evi- dence that, while the official name, priest, was so familiar to Jews, it is never once applied to gospel-ministers in the New Testament. They are "teachers," "presbyters," "ministers," " angels of the Churches," " ambassadors," " servants," but never ''hozlz ! Finally, Christ is the antitype to a long line of typical priests. See Heb. viii : 4, 5 ; ix : ii. That these Levitical officers represented in type, the very idea of the priesthood proper, is demonstrated by every feature of their service. The animals they slew died vicariously. Every act was mediatorial, and their whole function began and was con-- tinned with expiation. Now, by the rule that the body must be more substantial than the shadow which it casts before, Christ's work, as antitype, must at least be as priestly as that of the prefiguring emblems.

The peculiarities of Christ's priesthood are: i. The dig- nity of His person. 2. The solemnity of His appointment, by an oath. 3. His combining royalty and priesthood like Mel- chisedec. 4. His having, like him, neither predecessor nor successor; because, 5. His oblation had such infinite value and complete efficacy, that, 6. It grounded at once an everlasting and all prevalent intercession ; and that, 7. Not only for one man, or race, but for all the Elect.

The argument for the necessity of an atonement proceeds 12. Necessity of Sat- chiefly on the question, whether distributive isfaction argued from justice is an essential moral attribute of God : God s Perfections. ^^ whether, as Socinians assert, there is noth-

ing in His nature which renders it less natural and proper for Him to remit guilt without satisfaction, than to create, or leave uncreated, a given thing. The Socinians, as we have seen, in order to evade the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, deny both the necessity of it, and the essential justice of God.

Bear in mind, then, that in this whole argument we attrib- ute to God all the perfections which make Him an immutable

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 487

and infinite Being. We shall not pause to argue these against Socinians, but refer you to your previous course of theology. But the necessity which we assert for God's punishing guilt is only moral. It is not a physical necessity Phylkal.^''''''"^ "°^ lil^e that which ensures that fire will burn, supposing the presence of fuel, and that water will wet, supposing its application. Here, then, falls the cavil of Socinus, that if retributive justice be made an essen- tial attribute of God, its exercise must be conceived of as inev- itable in every case, because of God's immutability, (as we call it,) so that mercy in every case would be impossible. Divine immutability does not imply that God must ever act in modes mechanically identical; but that His acting must always be consistent with the, same set of essential attributes. As cir- cumstances change. His very immutability requires a change of outward actings. Again ; for God to effectuate a given part of His decrees of mercy, when, in time, the 'conditions of that execution are first in existence, is no change of purpose in Him. When God passes from wrath to reconciliation, as to a given sinner, it is no change in Him. The change is in the sinner. The same attributes which demanded wrath before, now demand peace ; because the sinner's guilt is gone. The proper view of God's immutable perfections, therefore, leads us to conclude, that without an atonement they would render par- don of sin absolutely and universally impossible : but that, an atonement being provided, they offer no obstacle to par- don.

Again, it is another perversion to carry the idea of pecun- iary debt so far, in our conceptions of Compefood! ^°^^ """^ g^i^^, as to conceive of a vicarious atonement as legal tender. When a security comes for- ward, and offers to pay the whole debt of the poor insolvent in jail, with principal and interest, cost and charges, the creditor must accept this legal tender ; if he does not, he cannot claim payment afterwards. And the insolvent demands his release as of right. Now, guilt is not a mere debt, in this sense. It is a personal obligation to penalty; because the responsibility violated was strictly personal ; and strict justice would entitle the ruler to hold the guilty party to endure that penalty in him- self. Therefore, when the personal relation to law is waived by the ruler, and a substitute accepted, there is an act of grace, of mercy. This is the answer to the objection, that " if the necessity of the atonement be asserted, God the Father per- forms no act of grace, and deserves no thanks for letting the transgressor go free. He has exacted the last penny, and the release is a mere act of justice." To our Surety it is ; but not to us. Besides, was there no grace in giving us the surety to pay for us ?

Socinians clamorously object, that we who teach the neces-

488 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sity of an atonement, strip God of those Anl?t;ti5sSon:: qualities which in all others would be most

noble, generous and admirable ; a willingness to overlook His own resentment, and magnanimously forgive without payment of the injury, where penitence was expressed. That we represent God as an odious and cruel being, who would rather see His erring creatures damned, no matter how penitent, than sacrifice His own pique ; and who is determined to pour out His revenge somewhere, if not on the sinner, on his substitute, before He will be satisfied. These cavils are already answered by the above view. For a private man to act thus would be unamiable ; he is himself a sinner. God has told him, "Vengeance is Mine ; " and the supreme rule of the man's life is, that he shall do everything, forgiving injuries among the rest, for God's pleasure and honour. But God is Himself the supreme End of all His doings, as well as Chief Magistrate of the Universe. Turrettin, Hill, &c., also appeal to other distinctions, to rebut these objections. Four things may be considered in a transgression, viewed as against a human ruler. The debt con- tracted thereby, the wrath or indignation excited, the moral defilement contracted by the transgressor in the eyes of the injured party, and the guilt, or obligation to legal penalty, incurred. Now, the plausibility of the Socinian cavil arises wholly from regarding the first three elements of sin, and stu- diously averting the eyes from the fourth. So far as the injury done me, as a magistrate, was a personal debt of wrong, humanity might prompt me to release it without satisfaction rendered ; for that element of debt being personal, I have a personal right to surrender it if I choose. So far as I have had a personal sense of indignation and resentment excited by the wrong, that also it might be generous and right in me to smother, without satisfaction, in compassion to the wrong doer. I conceive that a certain element of moral defilement has come on him by his evil act, which constitutes a reason for punishing. If he amends that moral defilement by sincere penitence and reform, that obstacle to an unbought pardon is also removed. But it is far otherwise with the debt of guilt to law, of which I am the guardian. That is not a debt personal to me ; and there- fore I, as lawgiver, may not remit it without satisfaction. If I do, I violate my trust as guardian of the laws. Such is their arguing, and it is just. But it applies to God, as against sin- ning creatures, far more than to human lawgivers. And the same reasonings which show that the human ruler ought to surmount the first, second, and third elements of offence in order to pardon, do not apply to God. The human lawgiver is but a man, and the transgressor is also a man, his brother, and nearly his equal in God's' eye. In the other case, the offended party is infinite, and the offender His puny, absolute property,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 489

whom God may and ought to dispose of for the sovereign grat- ification of His own admirable and excellent perfections.

We shall not say, as Hill incautiouly does in one place, that the fact that God is a Lawgiver is the r? ^it^M ^'^ °'^'' ^^^^ principle on which the doctrine of satis- faction rests ; although we shall, in its proper place, assign it due importance. The importance of God's jnstice being protected, does not arise only or chiefly from the fact that the order of His universal empire is concerned therein. God Himself, and not His creature's well-being, is the proper ultimate end of His own actings, as well as of our deeds of piety ; a doctrine repugnant indeed to all Socinian and rational- istic views, but founded in reason and Scripture. If the perfec- tions and rights of God are such that it is proper all other beings should love and serve Him supremely, by what argu- ment can it be proved that He should not do so likewise? Again : He being before all things, and having all the motives and purposes for making all things from eternity, while as yet nothing was, must have found those motives only in Himself. He being the only Thing existent, there was no where else to find them. Third : If creatures ought to render the supreme homage of their powers and being to God, ought not He to receive it? i Cor. x : 31. Last, to make any thing else the ultimate End of the universe, deposes God, and exalts that something to the true post of deity ; to which God is made to play the part of an almighty convenience. Let human pride be pulled down. As for Scriptures, see Prov. xvi : 4 ; Is. Ixi : 3 ; Rom. xi : 36.

God ought, therefore, to regard transgression, which out- Satisfying His own rages His holy attributes and excites His Justice tlierefore His wrath, in a very different way from that proper chief Motive. ^^^ ^^ creatures, sinners ourselves, when our

fellow-sinners offend us. It may be very true that it is good, magnanimous, for one of us to forgive injury without satis- faction, and to extirpate our indignation for the sake of rescuing our fellow-creature from suffering the punishment ; but the reasoning does not hold, when applied to the Supreme. The executing of His good pleasure, the illustration of His perfec- tions are, for Him, more proper ends than the continued well- being of any or all sinful worlds, bestowed at the expense of His attributes. It is a more proper and noble thing that God should please Himself in the acting out of His own infinitely holy and excellent attributes, than that He should please His whole creation by bestowing impunity on guilty creatures. And, therefore, not only do reasons which arise out of God's moral relations to His creatures as their Ruler, but yet more reasons arising directly out of His own supremacy and righteousness, require Him to punish guilt without fail.

490 SYLLABUS AND NOTES ^

(a) The Scriptures ascribe to God holiness, righteousness,

and justice, in a sense which shows them to ^ Holiness, Justice, and ^^ essential attributes. See Is. vi : 3 ; Ps.

Ixxxix : 14 ; v : 4 ; Gen. xviii : 25 ; Exod. xxxiv : 7 ; Hab. i : 1 3 : Rom. i : 1 8-32 ; ii : 6-1 1 ; iii : 6, &c., &c. Some of these passages bring to view His justitia jmiversalis, or the general rectitude of His nature ; and some His adminis- trative justice, as dealing with His moral creatures. Now, we argue from the former, that since God is immutable, and this perfection is essential, He will not, and by a moral necessity cannot, be affected by moral evil as He is by good. It is impossible that His feeling and will can confound the two, can fail to be opposed to sin, and favourable to rectitude. But God, while His will is governed by His own perfections, is absolutely free ; so that no doubt His conduct will follow His will. God's distributive justice we naturally conceive as prompting Him to give every one His due. As naturally as well being is the just equivalent of obedience, just so naturally is suffering the equiva- lent of sin; and justice as much requires the punishment of sin, as the reward of merit. To fail in apportioning its desert to either, is real injustice. Now, does not God assert that His ways are equal? Shall not the like rule guide Him which He imposes on us ? See, then, Prov. xvii : 15 ; Rom. ii : 6-1 1.

Again God has pledged His Truth to the execution of penal sanctions. He has threatened. See Numbers xxiii : 19. The argument is enhanced by the repetitions, energy, and oaths, with which He has said and sworn, the wicked shall not enter into His rest. Hence His essential attribute of truth is engaged to require satisfaction for guilt, (b) The argument from God's moral perfections is confirmed by

observing His administration towards man. His Actual Govern- j^^ ^j^^ ^^.g^ revelation made to man, that of ment. , . . . , , , , ,

paradise, justice was declared as clearly as

grace. Was goodness displayed in the bounties to man, and was the adoption of life offered to Him on easy terms ? Yet justice added the threat, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." As soon as innocent man fell, and a religion for sinners was to be revealed, the foremost point of this creed was the necessity that sin must be punished, for the satisfaction of divine justice, truth and holiness. The chief aim of God, in every institution of the Old Testament religion was obviously,

to make this prime truth stand out to the siSdST^dS.''" apprehension of sinners. What was the

prominent addition made to the worship of paradise ? Bloody sacrifice ; and that, undoubtedly, ordained by God ; as we have seen. And this remained the grand char- acteristic of the religion for sinners, until the " Lamb of God " came to meet the great demand of satisfaction. Wherever the Patriarchs approached the throne of grace, there the altar must

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 49I

be raised, from the day Abel worshipped before the gates of

the lost Eden, until Christ rent the veil of the sanctuary. The

orisons of faith and penitence must be accompanied with the

streaming blood of the victim and the avenging fire of the altar.

Prayer could only rise to heaven, as the way was opened for it

by the smoke of the sacrifice. God was thus teaching all ages,

this foundation-truth of the theology of redemption that, " with

out the shedding of blood, there was no remission." Thus

impressively are we introduced to the Levitical argument.

The necessity of atonement is taught in all the Old Testa-

. ment sacrifices (as the Gentile sacrifices are

Argument from Sacn- -u 4. *.• r > • 4- <.i

{[(.Q^l the testimony 01 man s conscience to the

same truth). The Apostle Paul, as already intimated, makes a grand induction of the ritual facts of the Old Testament, in Heb. ix : 22. "And without shedding of blood was no remission." It is literally true, that the cere- monial law remitted no trespass, sin, or uncleanness, without a substitutionary animal death ; save in the exception for the very poor, of Levit. v : ii. Search and see. The theological prin- ciple thus set forth is just my thesis ; the necessity of satisfaction in order to pardon. Now, there is no idea which is inculcated, in the whole of Revelation, so constantly, so early, so carefully. It was the first truth, in the religion of redemption, taught to Adam's family. The awful, bloody symbol of it was ever pres- ent in all the worship of the Old Testament Church. With God's mind, it is ever the first and strongest thought. With man's unbelieving mind, it is the last and least. Indeed, the contrast here is amazing ; and the stupidity of the human mind in apprehending this first rudiment, is one of the strongest proofs of its natural deadness in sin. God's example, in per- petually obtruding on sinners the impressive sacrificial symbol of this truth, should be instructive to pastors. They must con- stantly urge the necessity of satisfaction.

This obstinate obtuseness is manifested at once by the ^ • . ^ ^ crude notions of the people and the refined

Obstinate Errors of i , • r -i 11 tt ^.-u

gjjjners. speculations 01 the scholar. Jiven the con-

victed sinner is stubbornly oblivious of the claims of God upon his sins, and assigns anything rather than the true ground, his repentance, his reformation, his anxieties, for the title to his pardon. When these " refuges of lies" are swept away, and the soul is left desperate and cowering before its righteous doom, the pastor may hold up the gospel doctrine of satisfaction, and the convicted man will turn from it stolid and blind, until God shines into his heart. Carnal philosophy is equally prejudiced. It proposes any inconsequent scheme rather than the true one, to account for the punishment of sin, and the call for a sacrifice from Christ. One tells us, that suf- fering has no penal significance, but is the regular and unavoid- able effect of natural law upon creatures organized and finite.

492 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

as though that law were anything else than the expression of God's moral will : and as though He had not told us, " death came by sin," Another tells us, that primitive justice is nothing but " benevolence guided by wisdom," that as Love is God's only moral attribute, the only ends of penalty must be philan- thropic, that it is but a prudent expedient to protect men from the miseries involved in sin. So, when they come to explain the sacrifice of Calvary, they give any other than the true account of it. Says one : It was designed to attest the divine mercy offered us in the gospel promises. Another : It was to set us a splendid example of long-suffering. Another : It was to break our hearts by the spectacle of dying love. And others : It was to make a wholesome exhibition of the evil of sin. The Scripture saith it was all this : but because it was more, because it was primarily designed to make satisfaction for our guilt.

(c) Many minds, like the great jurist Grotius', have deluded themselves by likening God's penal adminis- Pena^ty ReSeT'^^ °^ tration to that of the civil magistrate ; which is, in a large degree, an expedient to repress the mischiefs of transgression. They suppose no higher aim is to be imputed to God's justice. But the comparison is par- tial. God has reserved to Himself the supreme function of retribution, delegating to earthly rulers only the temporary and lower purposes of law. Yea, even if the magistrate loses sight of the true ground of his penalties in the evil desert of the crimes he punishes, they at once sink from the rank of a righteous expediency, to that of an odious and unprincipled artifice.

That the benefit of the culprit is not the true end of pen- alty may be very quickly decided by the fact, that many of God's most notable penalties summarily destroyed their objects; as the Flood, doom of Sodom, and the retributions of hell. Of course God has done in these cases, what He meant to do. But they say : God, having seen that the amendment of these sin- ners was hopeless, and that they were infallibly drawing on themselves the worst mischiefs of sin, made examples of these for the good of others. So His only motive is still benevolence, seeking thus to overrule the unavoidable calamities of the few, to the " greatest good of the greatest number." Having thus placed a fragment of truth in the place of the whole, they sometimes turn on us, with an arrogant contrast between the boasted mildness of their scheme, and what they call the venge- ful severity of ours. Our God, say they, is the God of love. Yours is the theology of ancient barbarians, who sanctified their vindictive malice under the name of vindicatory justice, and imagined a God like themselves, pleased with the fumes of His enemies' blood. They say ours is "the theology of the shambles."

But let us see how this declamation will stand the test of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 493

reason and Scripture. Is God any better pleased with a holy creature than with a transgressor ? Of course, yes. But for what is He better pleased with the holy? For his righteous- ness. It is right then in God to love righteousness ? Of course, yes : Did He not, He would be Himself unright- eous. But righteousness and sin are the opposite poles of character. Just as the attraction of the one end of the magnet to the North pole is the repulsion of the other end towards the South ; so to love holiness is to hate sin. The perfection, then, which prompts God to the amiable work of rewarding good desert, is the same perfection which consistently prompts to punish ill desert. Hear Anselm of Canterbury, reasoning with his imaginary opponent, Boso.

"To remit sin " (without satisfaction) " is nothing else than not to punish it. And since nothing else than punishment is the right adjustment of the sin that has not been satisfied for, if it is hot punished, it is left unadjusted." — Boso. " What you say is reasonable." — Anselm. "But it is not becoming for God to leave anything in His kingdom unadjusted." — Boso. "If I wish to assert otherwise, I fear to sin." — Anselm. " So then it does not become God to leave sin thus unpunished." — Boso. " So it follows." — Anselm. " And there is another thing that fol- lows; that if sin is thus left unpunished, it will be just the same wiih God whether one sins or does not sin ; and that does not befit God." — Boso. " I cannot deny it." — Anselm. " Look at this too. Nobody is ignorant, that the righteousness of men is under the law; so that the measure of its recompense is dis- pensed by God according to its quantity." — Boso. " So we believe." — Anselm. " But if sin is neither paid for nor pun- ished, it is subject to no law." — Boso. "I cannot understand it otherwise," — Anselm. " Then, unrighteousness, if it be remitted by mere mercy, is freer than righteousness ? And that seems extremely unsuitable. This absurdity also is attached to it : that it makes unrighteousness like God, in that, just as God is subject to no law, so unrighteous is not."

This pretended resolution of punitive justice into benev- olent expediency is, in its result, impious towards God, and practically identical with the selfish system of morals. We have seen above, that "man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever."- This humanitarian scheme says that this would make God the. supreme egotist. It proposes as a more suitable supreme end, not self, but mankind : the advantage of the greatest number. This they claim, is true disinterestedness. But is not that which is made our highest ultimate end thereby made our God ? It is nothing to the purpose that names and titles are decently exchanged, and man still called the creature, and Jehovah the God. Virtu- ally, the aggregate of humanity is made our deity, by bein<y made our moral End ; and Jehovah is only retained, if retained.

494 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

at all, as a species of omnipotent conveniency and Servitor to this creature-God. Further : inasmuch as the benevolent man is himself a part of this aggregate humanity, which is his moral End, he himself is, at least in part, his own supreme end ! Here the supreme selfishness of this scheme of pretended dis- interestedness begins to crop out. In this aggregate humanity I am an integer, " by nature equal " to any other. What then so reasonable, as that I should deem the humanity embodied in myself, as my own nearest and most attainable moral End ? Does not the natural instinct of self-love point to this conclu- sion ; as well as the facts that I cannot, with my limited nature benefit all, that I am more nearly responsible for my own wel- fare, and that I have more means to promote it with certainty than any other man's ? Hence, the properest mode to promote " the greatest good of the greatest number," will be for each one to make his own personal advantage his supreme end ! Here the abominable process from these utilitarian premises, is completed. Dr. Samuel Hopkins, the great American inventor of this scheme, has himself carried his system to this result, with a candour which is amusing for its simplicty : Says he : vol. I : p. 475.

" As every person is nearest to himself, and is most in his own view, has opportunities to be better acquainted with his own circumstances, and to know his own wants, his mercies and enjoyments, &c : and has a more particular care of his own interest, than of that of others : is under greater advant- age to promote his own happiness than others ; his disinter- ested universal benevolence will attend more to his own interest, and he will have more and stronger exercises of it respecting his own circumstances and happiness than those of others, all things being equal : not because it is his own interest, but for the reason just given." That is to say; his virtue will be to practice supreme selfishness, provided he is not selfish in doing so ! Thus this boasted scheme resolves itself into one of selfish expediency.

This theory of penalty receives the following refutation. If it is only a benevolent expedient for reform- em woul'Jbrjifst^^'^'" ^ng sinners and repressing sin, then the expe- dient which is most effectual is most just. If a case arises in which the criminal and those like him will be more deterred by punishing the innocent than the guilty, it will be more just to do so. The instance may easily arise in actual life. Here, for example, is an outlaw, hardened in crime, desperate, callous to shame, weary of his life, whom it is pro- posed to curb by punishments. But none of them reach him. Shame has for him no deeper gulfs. The prison is less a hard- ship than his vagrant and starving life. Corporal pains have little terror for one familiar witli misery. Death is rather a wel- come refuge than a dread. The expediency fails. But now

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

495

there steps forth a poHceman, who says that there is yet one green spot in this seared and arid heart ; that this desperado has an only child, an innocent and tender daughter, whose purity has shielded her from all taint. Punish her with stripes. Let him stand and see her tender flesh torn with the scourge, and hear her screams ; and his rugged heart will relent. He will promise anything to save 'his beloved child. Does not the success of this experiment justify its righteousness ? Every right heart answers, with abhorrence, No. Such a punish- ment of the guiltless would be a monstrous crime. Then we must reject that theory of penalty.

But further : Expedients are the resort of the weak. Omnipotence has no need of them for it can OmnipStenc? ^''^ "^^^^^^ Straight to its ends. Now, if love is God's whole moral rectitude, as an infinite being, He must be infinitely benevolent. Why then has He not adopted the other plan, to which His omnipotence is certainly competent, of effectually excluding the mischiefs of sin by mak- ing and keeping all His creatures holy? Why does He not convert Satan, instead of damning him ? Thus a large aggregate of happiness would have resulted ; all that, namely, arising out of Satan's innocency minus the penal pangs. Moreover, pen- alty has turned out but an imperfect and partial preventive, after all, for in spite of it earth and hell are full of sin, and God must have foreseen this failure of the repressive policy. Benevo- lence must, then, on these principles, have led Him to adopt a system of universal efficacious grace, instead of a policy of penal sanctions.

But especially is it impossible, on this theory of expedi- ency, to account for everlasting punishments inexpiicable!^"^^ "^'^"^^ under an Almighty God. Here the remedial theory is out of the question ; for the culprit is to sin and suffer forever. Nor will the other plea avail ; that the penalties in this case are for the benefit of others. For this infliction is to continue everlasting ages after all the penitent shall have been perfected, and the perfect securely enclosed within the protecting walls of heaven. There, endowed as they are, with perfect love and holiness, they need no threatening example, to keep them from sin. He who holds this theory of punishment, must, if he is consistent, go on to modern Univer- salism, or else he must deny God's omnipotence over free agents.

Resuming the affirmative argument, I make my first appeal

^ . „ . . to conscience. Every man who believes in

Amrmative Ar eii- ^ j t_ i- tt- • ^- ^^

ment from Conscience. ^ ^OQ, believes His justice the Same in ess- ence with that imprinted on his own con- science. For two reasons, we must believe this : That we are made in God's rational image. And that Governor and gov- erned must live by the same code of justice in order to under-

496 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

stand each other. Let any man, then, ask himself impartially, why he approves of a just punishment. The answer of his rea- son will be simply: because the sin deserves it. . Our judgment of right and wrong is intuitively accompanied with the convic- tion of good and ill desert. But, desert of what ? Reason answers, of reward or penalty, of well being or suffering. The title to the one is a counterpart to the title to the other. That this judgment is intuitive, is disclosed by the following instan- ces : If any reverent or fair mind is asked how the presence of so much suffering in the world can consist with God's benevo- lence, the reason turns instinctively to the solution : Because so much sin is here. The presence of the sin justifies the pres- ence of the suffering. Second. Every sane human being who is in his sin, dreads to meet God. Why ? Witness the moral fear of death, and the certainty with which the most reckless men apprehend their doom and its justice, when the solemn hour has dissipated vain illusions and recalled the soul from the chase of vanities. The same conviction is familiarly but justly argued from the conscious guilt of pagans, and their desire for expiatory sacrifice. Said Ovid : Timor fecit Deos. To this shallow solution Edmund Burke answered: Qtiis fecit timorein? The belief in God and conviction of His punitive justice must be a priori to the fear of them. Third. When any right- minded man witnesses the escape of a flagrant criminal from justice, he is indignant. He says : "The gallows is cheated;" and this expression conveys a certain just complaint and sense of moral grievance. Should the escaped man charge this as a malicious thirsting for his destruction, the spectator would indignantly deny this construction. He would say : " My sen- timents are not cruelty, but justice." And he would declare that they were compatible with sincere pain at the anguish of a justly punished culprit.

We have seen that the title of the guilty to penalty is the

correlative to the title of the righteous to

Title to ^P^^ty Cor- reward. If a benevolent policy may properly

ward. suspend the former, why not also the latter?

But we presume that if the consciously righteous man were robbed of his immunity, pro bo?to publico, against his own consent, no picture of the beneficent results would reconcile his soul to the intrinsic injustice. Let the stu- dent ponder, in this connection, Prov. xvii : 15; Rom. ii : 9-1 1. 2 Thess. i : 6. This loose view of punishment thus appears peculiarly foolish and suicidal in those who hold it, in that they, with their Socinian tendencies, rely more or less on their own merits for their acceptance. But if sin carries the same merit of penalty that righteousness does of reward, and if they will have God sever the former tie at the dictate of expediency, they must be prepared to find the latter uncertain also.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 497

The moral law is the transcript of God's own essential per- fections. This teaches us to expect that per- The Law Immutable, j^^^ency in it, which our Saviour, in Matt, v : 18, claims for it. But is not the penal sanction asubstantive part of the statute ? The common sense of mankind would certainly answer, yes. What is the object of a penal sanction? To sup- port the law. If then the law is to be immutable, the penal sanction which supports it must be so. There is a curious evi- dence of the judgment of human legislators on the question, whether the penal sanction is a substantive part of the law ; that in their prohibitory statutes, it is the only part they usually publish at all ! Now then if the law is irrevocable, the penalty is also inevitable.

The whole of the above argument may be put in a very practical light — thus : Is not judicial impar- Jn^lPnfvSir'' tiahty With God "a matter Of principle?" The upright human judge v/ho was entreated by the convicted man, or by his counsel, to act as the Socinian expects God to act in pardoning, would be insulted ! Now, how does God require us to act, in matters of principle ? He literally requires us to die rather than compromit our princi- ples. He requires us to meet martyrdom, rather than yield them. Now does God first command us to seek our complete rectitude in the imitation of Himself, and then act oppositely to His injunction to us? Surely not. In representing the neces- sity of satisfaction as so high, as to call for the infinite satisfac- tion of Christ's death in order to make sin pardonable, we con- form precisely to the system of morals which the Scriptures commend to us for ourselves. The tendency of Calvinism is wholesome herein.

On the other hand, the looser doctrine is as corrupting to

man as it is dishonouring to God. Its advo- Other Docbineis Cor- „4.^„ £i„ +. 4-u^ u^•^ i.- i. i^. •

rupting. cates flout the obligation to penalty in every

sin. They say Calvinism deifies revenge. They declare substitution and imputation immoral fictions. The student may be forewarned that, when he hears one of these " advanced thinkers " thus teaching, if he be not idly babbling, he had best be shunned as a man not to be trusted. It is a confession of indifference to moral obligation. He who is ready so fliippantly to strip his God of His judicial rights, will probably not stickle to plunder his fellow of his rights. In this theory of guilt and penalty, he has adopted the creed of expediency. Will he not act on it, when tempted by his own interests? Worse than all, he has fashioned to himself a God of expedi- ency. Saith the Psalmist, (cxv : 8), " They that make them are like unto them; so is everyone that trusteth in them." As man never comes up to his model, a corrupt idol always sinks the votary to a lower degradation than its own. Nor could God repair this consequence by any preceptive stringency. Shall He

498 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

forbid us to sacrifice principle to expediency, even to save life itself? Shall He exact of us martyrdom itself, rather than we shall tamper with right and truth ; and all this under the penalty of His eternal wrath ? Shall He charge us, also, that our holiness is to consist in imitation of Him ? And shall He then adopt a standard of expediency forHimself, which He has so sternly inhib- ited to us ? The only effect would be to make men hypocrites, (e) Moreover ; does not God bear moral relations to His creatures, as well as they to Him ? Gen. RecSjusdc".^°^'' xviii:25. Surely. As Ruler, and especially as Almighty Ruler, with nothing to hinder Him from doing His will, He is bound to His own perfections to rule them aright, as truly as they are bound to Him to serve aright. This being so, retributive justice will be seen to flow as a necessity from the holiness and righteousness of God. By these attributes God necessarily and intrinsically approves and delights in all right things. Wrong is the antithesis of right. A moral terthan quid is an impossibilty, as the mere absence of light is darkness. There is no moral neutrality. Hence, it results, that God must hate the wrong by the very reason He approves the right ; e. g., if a man feels moral complacency at a filial affection, will he not, ipso facto, be certain to feel repug- nance at ingratitude ? I see not how God would be holy at all, unless His justice were necessary.

Again ; were it not so, God would be unjust to His inno- cent creatures. Sin is injurious ; to all but infallible Being con- tagious, and universally mischievous. God has been pleased to adopt a plan of moral sanctions, to protect the universe from sin. Those beings who kept their covenant with God, have a right on Him, which He, in infinite condescension, gave them, to be protected efficiently. Hence, His righteousness must lead Him to inflict penal sanctions with exactness, for it is well known that uncertainty in this encourages transgressions, con- founds moral distinctions, and relaxes government. Should God do thus, He would be sacrificing the well-being and rights of those who deserved well at His hands, to a weak compassion for those who deserved nothing. God's essential justice is the foundation of the rights and order of the universe. Unless its actings are certain and regular, we are all at the mercy of an unprincipled Omnipotence. Even the damned have no interest in making God's justice uncertain; because it is the only guar- antee that they shall not be punished more than they deserve. And the wider God's dominions, the greater strength have all these arguments, forcible as they are even in the narrow domain of the family, school or state.

The parallel drawn from acts of pardon without satisfac- tion, safely and beneficially indulged in by tra^^sno"precedent^^" l"'"""'an rulers, is deceptive, because they have not the divine perfections of omnipotence,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 499

unchangeableness and omniscience. It might be no dishonour to a human magistrate to modify his purposes ; he never pro- fessed to be either perfectly wise or immutable. Cases may arise of conviction, where the evidence of guilt is uncertain, or the criminal intention doubtful. In these cases, and these alone, the pardoning power may find a wholesome exercise. Such cases have no existence in the administration of an omniscient God. Once more ; the power and authority of human rulers are limited. They must govern as they can, sometimes not as they would. God can do all things.

In a word, God's moral government, in its ultimate conclu- sion, must be as absolute and perfect as His own nature. For, being supreme and almighty, He is irresponsible save to His own perfections. Therefore, if He is a Being of infinite perfec- tions, His government must be one of absolutely righteous, final results. It will be an exact representation of Himself, for He makes it just what He pleases. If there is moral defect in the final adjustment, it can only be accounted for by defect in God. It must be an absolute result, because the free act of an infinite Being.

(f ) The death of Christ argues the necessity of satisfaction. For Socinus admits that He was an innocent Man, God's adopted Son. Surely God would not have made Him suffer under imputed guilt, (He had none of His own), unless it had been morally necessary. In this view, we see that the atone- ment, instead of obscuring, greatly exalts God's love and mercy ; that though He knew the price of pardon must be the blood of His own Son, His pity did not fail.

(h) Last ; it is tacitly implied in the admissions of Socin-

ians themselves, that God could not consist- Tacit Admission of ,i j vi i. i-i i. j Adversaries. ently pardon Without the repentance and

reform of the sinner. For this gives up the point that, in some sort, a satisfaction to the divine honour must be exacted. But, repentance and reform are not satisfactions. Second, we shall prove that repentance is the consequence and result of pardon, so that it cannot be its procuring cause. An injured man, we admitted, might regard repentance as obvia- ting the third element of transgression, the subjective moral turpitude But, in God's case, it may not, because God must bestow the repentance as truly as the pardon, and as a conse- quence of the pardon. See Acts v : 31 ; Jer. xxxi : 18, 19.

We will close with these general Bible testimonies to the necessity of satisfaction : Heb. vii : 27 ; viii : 3 ; ix : 7, 12, 22, 23, 28 ; X : 9, 10, 26, 27 to 29 ; ii : 10, 14, 17.

SYLLABUS

1. What analogies to redemption in the course of Nature and Providence ? Why is not vicarious satisfaction more admitted amongmen ?

Buder's Analogy, pt. ii, ch. 5. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 3, § i. Watson's Theo. Inst, ch. 20, g 8.

2. Define the terms, satisfaction, expiation, vicarious, atonement, &c., used of the doctrine.

Turrettin, Qu. 10, of Loc. xiv, g i- 16. Hodge's Theol. pt. iii, ch. 6, ^ 3. A. A. Hodge, on Atonement, pt. i, ch. 3 Lexicons. Knapp, § no.

3. Give the direct refutation of the Socinian theory of Christ's death ; and of the Moral Influence, and Governmental theories.

Turretin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 11. Hillbk. iv ch. 2, g i, 2. Dr. Ch. Hodge, Review of Beman. Dick, Lect 57. A. A. Hodge on Atonement, pt. i ch. 21.

4. Prove Christ's proper substitution and vicarious sacrifice, (a) From the phraseology of Scripture, (b) From His personal innocency. (c) From the import of the Gentile sacrifices, (d) From the import of the Levitical sacrifices, (e) From the Bible terms describing Christ's death.

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, ch, 11. Hodge's Theol. pt. iii, ch. 7. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 3 2 2, 3, 5. Dick, Lect. 57, 58. A. A. Hodge on Atonement, pt. i, ch. 8-12. Ridgley, Qu. 44, § 4 and 5. Watson's Theo. Inst. ch. 20. Knapp, § in

5. On what features do the value and efficacy of Christ's satisfaction depend ? Symington on Atonement, g 2. Turrettin, Qu. 10, g 6-16. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 3, § I.

' I ^O the question, How shall man be just with God, natural theology gives no certain answer. It seems, if we do not Redemption Fore- deceive ourselves by attributing to its light shadowed in Provi- discoveries really borrowed from inspiration, ^^^^^- to inform us very clearly that God is just, and

man therefore condemned. Having thus shut us up under wrath, its light deserts us, leaving only an uncertain twilight ghining towards the gate of mercy and hope. When reason looks into the analogies presented by that course of nature, as unbelief terms it, which is, in reality, nothing else than the course of Providence, she sees that there are certain evils consequent upon certain faults — e. g., sickness on intemperance, want on idle- ness, bodily death on reckless imprudence ; but she also sees that there are certain remedial provisions made in nature, by availing themselves of which men may sever the connection between the fault and the natural penalty. This fact would seem to hint that in God's eternal government there may be a way of mercy provided. But then, the analogical evidence is made very faint by this fact : that these natural reliefs for the natural evils incurred here by our misconduct, are rather post- ponements than acquittals. After all, inexorable death comes to sinful man, in spite of all expedients. 500

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5OI

But the most interesting fact to be noticed in this feeble analogy is, that these partial releases from Col^sTpSaky^''''^'^ the natural consequences of our faults, are most often received through a mediatorial agency, and that this agency is usually exerted for us by our friends at some cost to themselves, often at the cost of suffering the whole or a part of the very evils our faults naturally incurred. A man is guilty of intemperance ; its natural conse- quence is sickness and death, and without mediatorial interven- tion this consequence would become certain, for the foolish wretch is too sick to minister to himself. But Providence per- mits a faithful wife, or parent, or friend, to intervene with those remedies and cares which save his life. Now, at what cost does this friendly mediator save it? Obviously, at the cost of many of the very pains which the sick man had brought upon himself — the confinement, the watching, the loss of time, the anxieties of the sick room. Or, a prodigal wastes his sub- stance, and the result is want ; a result, so far as his means are concerned, inevitable. But his friend steps in with his wealth, pays his debts and relieves his necessities. Yet the cost at which he does it is in part the very same incurred by the guilty man's prodigality : decrease of his substance and consequent want. We may say, yet more generally, that the larger part of all the reliefs which Providence administers to the miseries of man's sinful condition, from the cradle to the grave, from the ' maternal love which shields and blesses his infancy, down to the friendship which receives his dying sighs, are administered through others, and that at the cost of sacrifice or effort on their part for him. Here, then, we have a general analogy pointing to a vicarious method of rescuing man from his guilt, and to sacrifice by a Mediator for him. We have called the evils adverted to in our illustrations, natural consequences of our faults ; but they are not therefore any the less ordained of God, and penal ; for what is the course of nature, but God ordering ? and does not our natural conscience show that suf- fering can only occur under the almighty providence of a just and good God as the penal consequences of ill-desert ?

The revealed idea of a satisfaction for sin, or vicarious ar- rangement to deliver man from guilt, has been made the butt of rationalistic objections. The value of this analogy is to silence these objections, by showing that the idea, however mysterious, is not unnatural.

It has been objected by rationalists, that vicarious punish- SubstitutionUnusual "^^nts are not admitted in the penal legislation in Civil Law, for Reas- of just and civilized men ; and if introduced, ^^^- would strike our moral judgments as v/rong

and unreasonable. It may be remarked, that among the an- cients these arrangements frequently appeared, in the cases of hostages, and avzc&j^^o:. In modern legislation they appear at

502 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

least in the case of suretyships for debt. But there are four very good reasons which distinguish between human govern- ments and God's.

1st. It is in my view, unreasonable and mischievous, to reply to objections against the morality of a

Because God is a substitution (Christ's or Adam's) by such a Sovereign Legislator. X ,, . i , ,

reference to Cjod s sovereignty, as should rep- resent it as irresponsible, not only to man's imperfect concep- tions of rectitude, but to the intrinsic principles thereof. What is this but saying that because God is omnipotent Owner, there- fore He may properly be unjust. Does might make right ?

But it is a very different (and proper) thing to say that, while God as Sovereign, regulates His every act by the same general principles of rectitude, which He enjoins on His creatures, yet He very justly exercises a width of discretion, for Himself, in His application of those principles, which He does not allow to hu- man magistrates, in delegating them a little portion of His power. Deut. xxiv : i6. This is made proper by His sover- eignty. (I may righteously do with my horse, what would be cruel in him to whom I had hired him, for a day's ordinary journey — e. g., ride him to extremity, or even to death, to res- cue the life of my child.) And by God's infinite knowledge and wisdom, judging the whole results of a substitution as a creature cannot. Hence, the impropriety of vicarious' arrangements among men may be compatible with their admission between God and man ; and yet no contrariety of moral principles in the two governments is involved ; e. g. I delegate to a teacher, at a distance, a portion of my parental power over my child. I tell him he is to consider himself, as to this extent, in loco parentis, and govern my boy on strictly parental principles ; yet he would be very unreasonable if he assumed power to exercise every kind of discretion as to him, which I might properly exercise.

2d. When men inflict penalties less than capital, one object

of the infliction is the reform of the offender; ishbg VirJdkatoiy!'""" ^°^ which a personal endurance of the pain is

necessary. But when God inflicts the eternal penalty of sin. He has no intention of reforming the sufferer thereby,

3d. In those cases where human tribunals punish by the

loss of life or liberty, the vicarious arrange- Me^^l?>S!''^'"°"^ "^ent cannot be adopted, because no one can

be found who is owner of his own life and well-being. But he cannot pay away, in ransom of another, what he has no right to part with.

4th. We found that one of the elements of offence con-

. tracted by wrong-doing was the moral turpi-

not Sanctiff!'^''^^*'^ *^^"' tude ; that and the removal of this by genuine

repentance is one of the necessary conditions for pardoning the wrong-doer. Now, a vicarious satisfaction is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5O3

inapplicable in human governments, because the human magis- trate would have no means to work genuine repentance in the criminal, though an atonement were offered. But without such repentance, guilt could not be properly pardoned, by God or man, however adequate the satisfaction to justice. Now, God can work and insure genuine repentance in His pardoned crimi- nals, through the Holy Ghost. See Acts v : 31. Hence, He can properly avail Himself of the principle of vicarious penalty. Even supposing a man could be found who had autocracy of his own life, time, and social relations, and who was willing to die for a murderer, when slain, he could not rise again ; he would be a final loss to society, and society would gain, in ex- change, the life of the murderer, now penitent and reformed, (supposing the magistrate, like God, had regenerating power over him). So, all the result would be, that society would lose a citizen who always had been good, and gain one who was about to become good. The magistrate would not feel himself justified in admitting the substitution, for such results, however it might be generous in the friend to propose it.

Word atonement is used often in the Old Testament, once

in the New, Rom. v: 11. The Hebrew is

e nitions. usually "^^^ literally, " covering," because

that which atones is conceived as covering guilt from the eye of justice. The Greek is /.axaXmyrj — reconciliation, as it and its cognates are elsewhere translated. It is plausibly supposed that "atonement" is " at-one-ment," — i. e., reconciliation. These words, then, are generic, and not specific of the particu- lar means of reconciliation, according to etymology. The word which I should prefer to use, is one sanctioned by the constant usage of the Reformed theologians, " satisfaction." This ex- presses truly and specifically what Christ did for believers. It points explicitly to the divine law and perfections, whose demand for satisfaction constitute the great obstacles to pardon. It in- includes, also, Christ's preceptive, as well as His penal, compen- sation for our debt. We shall see that both Christ's obedience to the preceptive law and His voluntary endurance of the penal sanction enter into His satisfaction, paid as our substitute. The established word, which has been deliberately attested and ap- proved by the Church, is by all means to be retained. Atone- ment, or reconciliation is related to satisfaction, as effect to cause.

The Reformed divines are also accustomed to make a dis- tinction between penal and moral satisfaction, J^atisfactionnotCom- ^^ ^j^^ ^^^^ j^^^^j^ ^^^ pecuniary payment, on

the other. In a mere pecuniary debt, the claim is on the money owed, not on the person owing. The amount is numerically estimated. Hence, the surety, in making vicarious payment, must pay the exact number of coins due.

504 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

And when he has done that, he has, ipso facto, satisfied the debt. His offer of such payment in full is a legal tender which leav^es the creditor no discretion of assent or refusal. If he refuses, his claim is cancelled for once and all. But the legal claim on us for obedience and penalty is personal. It regards not only the quid solvatur, but the quis solvat. The satisfaction of Christ is not idem facere ; to do the identical thing required of the sinner, but satis facere ; to do enough to be a just moral equiv- alent for what is due from the sinner. Hence, two consequences : Christ's satisfaction cannot be forced on the divine Creditor as a legal tender ; it does not free us ipso facto. And God, the Creditor, has an optional discretion to decline the proffer, if He chooses (before He is bound by His own covenant), or to accept it. Hence, the extent to which, and the terms on which, Christ's vicarious actions shall actually satisfy the law, depend simply on the stipulations made between Father and Son, in the cove- nant of redemption.

Yet, we shall by no means agree, with the Scotists, and the

early Remonstrants, that Christ did not make Yet not per accepti- ^ ^.^^i ^^^ equivalent satisfaction for sinners' lationem. 1 1 -r^i 1 tt- -r

debts. Ihey say, that His sacnhce was not

such, because He did not suffer really what sinners owed. He did not feel remorse, nor absolute despair ; He did not suffer eternally ; only His humanity suffered. But they suppose that the inadequate sufferings were taken as a ransom-price, per ac- ccptilationem : by a gracious waiver of God's real claims of right. And they hold that any sacrifice, which God may please thus to receive, would be thereby made adequate. The differ- ence between their view and the Reformed may be roughly, but fairly defined, by an illustration drawn from pecuniary obliga- tions: A mechanic is justly indebted to a land-owner in the sum of one hundred pounds ; and has no money wherewith to pay. Now, should a rich brother offer the landlord the full hundred pounds, in coin of the realm, this would be a legal ten- der; it would, ipso facto, cancel the debt, even though the cred- itor captiously rejected it. Christ's satisfaction is not ipso facto in this commercial sense. There is a second supposition : that the kind brother is not rich, but is himself an able mechanic ; and seeing that the landlord is engaged in building, he proposes that he will work as a builder for him two hundred days, at ten shillings per diem (which is a fair price), to cancel his poor brother's debt. This proposal, on the one hand, is not a " legal tender," and does not compel the creditor. He may say that he has already enough mechanics, who are paid in advance ; so that he cannot take the proposal. But, if he judges it conven- ient to accept it, although he does not get the coin, he gets an actual equivalent for his claim, and a fair one. This is satisfac- tio. The debtor may thus get a valid release on the terms freely covenanted between the surety and creditor. But there is a

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 505

third plan : The kmd brother has some " script " of the capi- tal stock of some company, which, " by its face " amounts nom- inally, to one hundred pounds, but all know that it is worth but little. Yet he goes to the creditor, saving : " My brother and I have a pride about bearing the name of full payment of our debt. We propose that you take this ' script ' as one hun- dred pounds (which is its nominal amount), and give us a dis- charge, which shall state that you have payment in full." Now, if the creditor assents, this is payment per acceptilationevt. Does Christ's satisfaction amount to no more than this ? We answer emphatically, it does amount to more. This dispar- aging conception is refuted by many scriptures, such as Isa. xlii : 21 ; liii : 6. It is dishonourable to God, representing Him as conniving at a "legal fiction," and surrendering all standard of truth and justice to confusion. On this low scheme, it is im- possible to see how any real necessity for satisfaction could exist. The Reformed assert then, that Christ made penal satis- faction, by suffering the very penalty de- Christ Suffered the j j u ^.u 1 f • t i.i • vei7 Penalty. manded by the law ot smners. In this sense,

we say even idem fecit. The identity we assert is, of course, not a numerical one, but a generic one. If we are asked, how this could be, when Christ was not holden forever of death, and experienced none of the remorse, wicked despair, and subjective pollution, attending a lost sinner's second death? We reply: the same penalty, when poured out on Him, could not work all the detailed results, because of His divine nature and immutable holiness. A stick of wood, and an ingot of gold are subjected to the same fire. The wood is permanently consumed : the gold is only melted, because it is a precious metal, incapable of natural oxidation, and it is gath- ered, undiminished, from the ashes of the furnace. But the fire was the same ! And then, the infinite dignity of Christ's person gives to His temporal sufferings a moral value equal to the weight of all the guilt of the world.

Christ, or His w^ork, is also called I'jzpov, ransom-price ;

and the transaction an d-o}Jjz(>ioatz or re- erms. deeming. The obvious idea here, is that of

purchase, by a price, or equivalent, out of bondage. He is also our [laafibz, or i^OAafioz, making for us propitiation, lAaazrjpcov. Expiation is the sacrificial and satisfactory action, making the offended Judge propitious to the transgressor. These terms applied to Christ's suffering work, justify us in describing His sacrifice, as His vicarious suffering of the penal- ties due our sins, to satisfy God's justice and thus reconcile Him to us.

Before proceeding to refute the Socinian theory of the

atonement, let us briefly re-state it. The ^^S^^Soaman Theory ^^ffej-ings of Jesus, they suppose, were not

penal ; but only natural, such as w^ould have

506 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

been incurred by Adam in Paradise, had he not fallen. Yet God permitted and ordained them, 1st. As an example to teach us patience, fortitude, and submission. 2d. As an attes- tation of the honesty and truth of His teachings concerning the way of life through imitation of Him. 3d. To make Him a compassionate Teacher, Friend, and Patron to His brethren. 4th. To make way for His resurrection ; which was the all-important evidence and warrant to us that eternal life may be hoped for, through repentance and reform. Thus, He died, suffered for us — i. e., pro bono nostrum — in a general sense. Thus, He is the Saviour and Redeemer of men — i. e., the Agent of their' salvation in a sense. But He made no penal satisfaction for sin. Now, an overwhelming indirect refutation of this theory has already been given, in our argument for the necessity of a proper vicarious penalty. Another will be presented under the succeeding head, when we prove that Christ's sufferings were vicarious. But for direct refutation, note :

There can be little reasonable encouragement in the ex- Theory Inconsistent, ^mple of one who suffered ^so bitterly with- ist. Because a Guiltless out deserving anything. Such a spectacle. Sufferer Suggests an instead of shedding light, hopC and patience Unjust God. ,, r . 1- \A 1

■^ on the sorrows 01 believers, could only

deepen the darkness and anguish ; for it could only suggest difficulties concerning the justice and benevolence of God, and raise the torturing doubt, " Can any one be secure of blessed- ness, any angel or saint in heaven, or is there any justice and benevolence in God, in which I may hope for release from pres- ent sufferings ; seeing a creature so holy as Jesus suffered thus ? He was enabled to triumph over them at last ? Yea, but why did God make Him suffer at all, when He was entirely innocent ? I, who am not innocent, may not be thus released after suffering ! " To represent His death as of such importance as the

2nd. Martytdom only attestation of the truthfulness of His teach- Demonstrates Martyr's ings, contradicts good sense and Scripture. Sincenty. ^jj ^^^ ^^ death of a martyr can prove is,

that he sincerely believes the creed for which he dies. False creeds have had their martyrs. The Scriptures nowhere refer to Christ's death as the evidence of His truth ; but uniformly to His works. See John xiv : 11 ; v : 36 ; x : 25-38; xv : 24, &c.

The Socinian scheme gives the chief importance to

3rd. Christ's Death Christ's resurrection, rather than His death, Purchases Salvation, as the means whereby " life and immortality not His Resurrection. ^^^^^ brought to light." His death was then rather the necessary preliminary step, to make His resurrection possible ; that the latter might be, to our faith, the splendid and crowning evidence of a future life for us. Did God, then, kill Jesus, to have the opportunity of raising Him ? Since a resur- rection is but the repairing of a death, it seems to me that the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 50/

whole transaction inspires at least as much terror as hope. He ordained the death of Him who deserved to live ; so there is an instance of severity, if not injustice, fully counterpoising the instance of goodness in raising Him. Again ; the Scriptures do not agree to the Socinian view ; for they everywhere repre- sent the benefit we derive from Christ as chiefly flowing from Christ's death. Heb. ii : 14. His resurrection was indeed a glorious attestation ; but it was an attestation of the sufficiency of that death, as a satisfaction to law, and an adequate pur- chase of our relief.

Again ; the whole plausibility of the Socinian's account of

Christ's death and resurrection is ruined by

epie-exisen. ^j^^ ^^^^ ^^ p^-^ pre-existence. For a mere

man to rise again after dying, like Lazarus, is an encouraging instance ; but the rising again of a Being who possessed a pre- vious and glorious life besides that of His humanity, presents on the Socinian view no analogy to encourage mortal man to hope for a resurrection. The answer is too obvious : that the strange anomaly of a resurrection in Jesus' case was most prob- ably the result of His glorious, pre-existent nature. Man has no such nature, and therefore should not expect, from such an instance, to imitate Him. As well might a log of wood infer that, because a living creature is seen to rise erect when laid on its back, therefore logs of wood may hope to rise, when laid on their backs. 4th. The Socinian scheme utterly fails to account for Christ's royal exaltation. We do not allude now to the fact that those regal functions (Matt, xxviii : 18; xxv:3i, 32; Eph. i : 22) could only be fulfilled by proper divinity. On the Socinian scheme, He ought not to have any regal functions. He has not earned them. He does not need them. Sinners regenerate themselves ; and their own repentance and reform are their righteousness ; so that the tasks of the royal priest, interceding and ruling on His throne, are useless and groundless.

Last; on the Socinian theory, Christ could not have 5th. Christ, on this ^^^" ^" ^^^X sense the Mediator or Redeemer Scheme, did not Re- of Old Testament saints. Their sins could deem Old Testament not have been remitted on the ground of Christ's prospective satisfaction for sin ; for, according to Socinians, there was none in prospect. Those saints could not have profited by Christ's example, teachings, and resurrection; because they were in heaven long before Christ existed. But see Heb. ix:i5; Rom. iii : 25 ; Jno. viii: 56, &c.

Against the scheme of Dr. Price, called by Hill the Mid-

The Middle Scheme. ^^^'^'^^{ ^f ^ ^11, p. 422,) these objections

obviously he : that it represents Christ as acquiring His title to forgive sin only by His death. But Matt. ix : 6, says that the Son of Man had power on earth to forgive sins before. It speaks splendidly of Christ's suffering in order

508 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

to acquire this title to pardon ; but it gives no intelligible

account of how these sufferings acquired that title. It is, in

this, as vague as Socinianism.

The scheme of atonement with which we have now most

concern, as defenders of truth, is that usually Governmental Influ- i j.i „ i. i u

ence Scheme known as the governmental scheme — i. e.

that whicn resolves the sufferings and death of Christ into a mere moral expedient of God, to connect such a display of His justice and hatred of sin, with His acts of par- don, as will prevent bad effects from the failure to punish strictly according to law. This view proceeds from that theory of ethics which resolves all virtue into benevolence, teaching that an act is right or virtuous only because it tends on the whole most to promote the welfare of Beings ; (and the con- trary). (We cannot pause here to debate this theory, but only note how intimately ethics and metaphysics affect Theology). Hence, these divines hold, God has no intrinsic, essential jus- tice, other than His benevolence — i. e., that the whole amount of His motive for punishing sin is, to preserve His moral empire from the mischiefs which sin unchecked would produce. Hence, the only necessity for an atonement which they recog- nize, is the necessity of repairing that defence against disorder in God's government, which the dispensing with the penalty would break down. They, consequently, deny that Christ was properly substituted under the believer's guilt, that He bore any imputation, that He made a real satisfaction to God's jus- tice, and that the justifying virtue of His righteousness is im- puted to men. The author of this system in New England seems to have been the younger Pres. Edwards, son of Jona- than, and its great propagator, Dr. Taylor, of New Haven. This is the system known as the New School, in the North, and advocated by Barnes and Beman on the atonement. It is a striking matter of history, that nearly all the arguments by which Edwards, Jr., sought to remove the old Calvinistic the- ory, to substitute his, were unconsciously Socinian.

If the necessity of satisfaction is proved from God's essen- tial justice, as we have attempted, this view ^ " ^ '°"' of the atonement is proved false. Again : if

we .shall succeed in proving that Christ's was a proper, vicarious sacrifice, this, also, overthrows it. Third : we have seen that this New England plan rests on this proposition ; that a govern- mental policy of repressing sin, is the only ground of God's justice ; resolving all right into mere utility. The abominable consequences of this ethical principle have been shown ; they are such that the principle cannot be true. We might add that man's intuitive moral judgments pronounce that sin is wrong, not merely because it tends to injure well-being, but wrong in itself; and that the very wording of such a statement, implies a standard of wrong and right other than that of mere utility.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. v: 11

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5O9'

This ethical principle being untrue, the plan falls with it. But further, for direct refutations : This plan of atonement

leaves us practically on Socinian ground, as to eousntrimpreS'"''" ^^^f' Justifying righteousness. If imputation

IS denied, and it Christ wrought out no proper satisfaction to justice for the believer's sin, to be set over to the believer's account for his justification, there is no alternative left ; the advocates of this plan are shut up to the Arminian definition of justification, as an imputing of the believer's own faith (along with the repentance and holy living flowing therefrom) as the ground of the sinner's repentance ; as his righteousness. Ac- cordingly Messrs. Barnes, &c., do explicitly accept this. But we shall show, in the proper place, that such a justification is unscriptural. Justification is no longer properly through Christ, saving faith would no longer be such a coming to Christ directly, as the Scriptures describe it ; and the whole tenour of Bible language concerning His divine righteousness, concerning His being the immediate object of faith, &c., &c., would be violated.

Last : the overwhelming objection to this plan is> that

. according to its definition, the sufferings of

Showino-! ^^ °^ ^ ^ °^" Christ would be no governmental display

whatever of the evils of sin, or of God's determination to punish. These divines avow that Christ is a Person possessed of a pre-existent, divine, holy and supreme nature, not only guiltless, but above law ; and of a pure and sinless humanity, the voluntary assumption of which only placed Him, by His own consent, under law, for a particular atoning purpose. His mediatorial person stood forth as the exemplar of sinless purity and perfection, to all creatures, in both its natures ; and in every relation ; attested by holy writ, by the voice of God speaking His divine approval from heaven in tones of thunder, by the reluctant tribute of His enemies, by the haughty Pagan who condemned Him, by the very traitor who betrayed Him, as he appears scathed with the fires of his own remorse, before his plunge into hell, and confesses that he had " betrayed the innocent blood." All heaven and all earth testified to the Son of Man, that He was " holy, harmless, un- defiled, and separate from sinners ;" testified to the universe. And yet, the universe is invited to come and behold this Being, the only innocent Man who had appeared since Adam, deliv- ered to torments more cruel than any of Adam's guilty sons had ever endured, " delivered by the determinate counsel" of His Father, while without guilt, either personal or imputed ! Is this a glorious display of justice ? Does this illustrate the evil of sin, and the inexorable connection which God's benevo- lence requires Him to maintain between sin and punishment ? Does it not rather confound all moral distinctions, and illustrate the evils of holiness, the cruelty and injustice of the Hand that

510 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

rules the world ? There is no explanation of Christ's suffering innocence, which does not involve an insuperable contradiction, except the orthodox ; and that, we admit, involves a great mystery.

Each of the false schemes attempts to express what is true. But ours really includes all that theirs

clu?efAlrhe!;S:rr <^lfi"?' ^l^il^ it embraces the vital element which they omit, vicarious penal satisfaction. And note : It is only by predicating the latter, that the moral influences claimed by the inadequate schemes really have place. Says the Socinian, Christ's suffering work is not vicarious, but only exemplary, instructive, and confirmatory. Says the mod- ern " Liberal Christian ;" it was intended only for that, and to present a spectacle of infinite tenderness and mercy, to melt the hearts of transgressors. Says the New Haven doctor: It was intended for those ends, and also to make a dramatic dis- play of God's opposition to sin, and of its evils. But we reply: If it was not a vicarious satisfaction for imputed guilt, then it was not consistently either of the others. But if it is vicarious satisfaction for guilt, then it also subserves, and admirably sub- serves, all these minor ends.

We now proceed to the centre of the true TheoiT. '^'^^^ ^ ° Subject to establish what has been several times anticipated — Christ's proper vicarious suffering for imputed guilt.

1st. From various sets of Bible phrases, exceedingly nume- rous and varied, of which we only present specimens. Thus :

He is said to have suffered and died " for us," " for the „,.,., ^ „ ungodly." Rom. v : 6, 8 ; and " for our

Christ died for us, &c. ■ n ^ rt t. •• -.o <: ~ c

Sins. I ret. iii : i8. tzsoc auao-uou. bo-

cinians say: " True, He died in a general sense for us, inasmuch

as His death is a part of the agency for our rescue: He did die

to do us good, not for Himself only." The answer is. that in

nearly every case, the context proves it a vicarious dying, for our

guilt. Rom. V : " We are justified by His blood." i Pet.iii : i8.

*' The just for the unjust." (urrko dd'r/.cov.) Then, also, He is said

to be a I'jziioi^ di^zi -o'/jxov. Matt, xx : 28. This proposition properly

signifies substitution. See Matt, ii : 22 for instance.

Again : He is said to bear our sins, and equivalent expres- sions. I Pet. ii : 24 ; Heb. ix : 28 ; Is. liii : ^Christ bore our sins, ^^ And these words are abundantly defined in our sense by Old Testament usage, (cf.) Num. ix : 13. An evasion is again attempted, by pointing to Matt, viii : 17, and saying that there, this bearing of man's sor- rows was not an enduring of them in His person, but a bearing of them away, a removal of them. We reply, the Evangelist refers to Is. liii : 4, not to liii : 6. And Peter says : "He bore our sins in His body on the tree." The language is unique.

Another unmistakable class of texts, is those in which He

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGV

511

is said to be made sin for us ; while we are

ChnstmadeSmforus. ^^^^ righteousness in Him. See I Cor. i :

30 ; 2 Cor. V : 21. A still more indisputable place is where He

is said to be made a curse for us. Gal. iii : 13. The orthodox

meaning, considering the context, is unavoidable.

Again : He is said in many places to be our Redeemer — ^, . ^ i. e., Ransomer — and His death, or He, is our

Christ our Ransom. r, tit i.i. o -n . • r^-

Ransom, Matt, xx : 28 ; i Pet. 1:19; i Tim. ii : 6 ; i Cor. vi : 20. It is vain to reply that God is said to redeem His people in many places, when the only meaning is, that He delivered them ; and that Moses is called the redeemer of Israel out of Egypt, who certainly did not do this by a vica- rious penalty : Christ's death is a proper ransom, because the very price is mentioned.

Christ's work is shown to be properly vicarious, from His 2nd. Christ Bore Impu- personal innocence. This argument has ted Guilt because Per- been anticipated. We shall, therefore, only sonally Innocent. ^arry to clear it from the Pelagian evasion,

and to carry it further. Pelagians, seeing that Christ, an inno- cent being, must have suffered vicarious punishment, if He suf- fered any punishment, deny that the providential evils of life are penal at all; and assert that they are only natural, so that Adam would have borne them in Paradise ; the innocent Christ bore them as a natural matter of course. But what is the course of nature, except the will of God ? Reason bays that if God is good and just. He will only impose suffering where there is guilt. And this is the scriptural account, " death by sin."

Further, Christ suffered far otherwise than is natural to good men. We do not allude so much to the peculiar severity of that combination of poverty, mahce, treachery, destitution, slander, reproach and murder, visited on Christ ; but to the sense of spiritual death, the horror, the fear, the pressure of God's wrath and desertion, and the satanic buffetings let loose against Him. (Luke xxii : 53 ; Matt, xxvi : 38 ; xxvii : 46). See how manfully Christ approaches His martyrdom ; and how sadly He sinks under it when it comes ! Had He borne noth- ing more than natural evil. He would have been inferior to other merely human heroes ; and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just : " Socrates died like a phil- osopher ; but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ's crushing ago- nies must be accounted for by His bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world.

Another just argument for Christ's proper vicarious sacri-

fice is brought from the acknowledged belief

Pagan Sense of^Word! ^^ ^^^^ whole Pagan world, at the Christian

era especially, concerning the meaning and

intent of their bloody sacrifices. No one doubts that, however

5 lis SYLLABUS AND NOTES

mistaken the Pagans are, they have always regarded their bloody sacrifices as proper offerings for guilt. Now, we use this fact in two ways. First. Here is the great testimony of man's universal conscience to the necessity of satisfaction for human guilt. Second. The sacred writers knew that this was what the whole world understood by "sacrifice." Why, then, did they call Jesus Christ, in so many phrases, a sacrifice ? Did they wish to deceive ?

We find another powerful Bible proof, in the import of the 4th. Jewish Sense. Levitical sacrifices. This argument is con- tained in two propositions. First. The theo- logical idea designed to be symbolized in the Levitical sacri- fices, was a substitution of a victim, and the vicarious suffering of it in the room of the offerer, for his guilt. (See Levit. xvii : II ; Levit. i : 4, et passim ; xvi : 21). Second. Christ is the antitype, of which all these ceremonies were shadows. (See Jno. i : 29 ; i Cor. xv : 3 ; 2 Cor. v : 21 ; Heb. viii : 3 ; ix : 1 1-14, &c., &c.) Now, surely the great idea and meaning of the types is not lacking in the antitype ! Surely the body is not more unsubstantial than the shadow ! This important argument may be seen elaborated with great learning and justice, in the standard works on Theology, as Dick or Ridgley, in works on Atonement, such, especially, as Magee ; and in works on the sacred archeology of the Hebrews, such as Outram, Fairbairn, &c. Hence few words about it.

The value of Christ's work may be said to depend on the 5. C o n d i t i o n s of following^ circumstances : Efficacy of Christian The infinite dignity of His person. (See

Atonement. l^^^^ xxxix.

The possession of the nature of His redeemed people.

His freedom from all prior personal obligation to obey and suffer.

His authority over His own life, to lay it down as He pleased.

His voluntariness in undertaking the task.

His explicit acceptance by the Father as our Priest. [These have been already expounded].

His union with His people.

SYLLABUS

6. Refute the Socinian and Semi-Pelagian Objections to the Doctrine of vicari- ous satisfaction ; viz :

(a). That Satisfaction and Remission are inconsistent, (b). That our theory makes out the Father a vindicitive being, (c). That the only thanks are due to Christ.

(dj. That either the divine Nature must have been the specific seat of the suffer- ing ; or it else must have been eternal.

(e). That Imputation is immoral and a legal fiction.

See Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. ii, and Vol. iv. Disputationes, 20, 21, de satis-

fac. Chr. A. A. Hodge on Atonement, ch. 20, pt. i. Dr Ch. Hodge, Theo.

p^. iii ch. 7, § 7. Dick, Lect. 58. Ridgley, Qu. 44, g 5. Watson's Theo.

Inst. ch. 20.

7. What was the Design of God in Christ's satisfaction, and the extent of that design? State hereon, (a). The Pelagian, (b). The Wesleyan. (c). The Hy- potheric Universalist, or " Armyraut-View." (d). The Calvinist.

Turretin Qu. 14. Hodge on Atonement, pt. ii. Hill, bk. iv. ch. 6. Whitby's Five Points. Hodge's Theo. pt. iii, ch. 8. Cunningham's Hist. Theol. ch. 20, § iv. Watson's Theo. Inst, especially ; ch. 25-38. Bellamy Works, Vol. i, pp. 382, &c. Baxter's Works.

/^EJECTIONS to our view of vicarious Atonement are ^■'^ chiefly of Socinian and Pelagian origin, i. It is objected . . that we represent the Father in an odious

I. jec ons. light, as refusing to remit anything till His

vindictiveness is satiated, and that to suppose full satisfaction made to the penal demands of law, leaves no grace in the remission of sin. It is not of grace, but of debt.

The answer to the former part of this objection is sug- gested in the lecture on Necessity of Atone- wia'Stct?„\?™ar »<="'•. Add, that Christ's atoning work did not dispose the Father to be merciful; but the Father sent Him to make it, because He was eternally dis- posed to be merciful. The objection is Tritheistic. There is . no mercifulness in the Son that was not equally in the Father. To the latter part of the objection the answer is plain : Satisfaction to Law is not incompatible with gracious remission ; unless the same person pays the debt who receives the grace. Does the Socinian rejoin : that still, the debt is paid, (we Cal- vinists say, fully,) and no matter by whom paid, it can not be remitted ? The answer is three-fold : (a) There is grace on the Father's part, because He mercifully sent His Son to make the Satisfaction, (b) The distinctions made in the last lecture, in defining Satisfaction, answer the whole cavil. As Satisfaction does not release ipso facto, the creditor's grace appears also, in his optional assent.

In fine : The Father's grace on our scheme is infinitely 33* 513

5 14 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

higher than on Socinian or semi-Pelagian. According to them, redemption only opens the door for the sinner to work out his own salvation. He may thank God and Christ somewhat, for being so kind as to open the door ; and himself more for doing the work ! But on our scheme, God, moved a priori by His own infinite mercy, gives us Christ, to reconcile vicariously the divine attributes with our pardon ; and gives us in Him, a com- plete justification, new heart, sanctification, perseverance, resur- rection, and eternal life.

The Socinians object, that on our scheme, since Christ

fully pays the Father, and He remits nothing, be^rafsed."^ ^ "^^^^ ° ^^^ redeemed have only Christ to thank.

The answer to this is contained in the pre- ceding.

It is a favourite objection of the Socinians, that if Christ is

. God, we Calvinists represent Him as placa-

ca^e Himself ?^"^ ^ ^" ^^^S Himself, by His own vicarious offering;

which involves the absurdity of supposing Him so angry as to demand penalty, and so merciful as to pay it, all in one breath. The answer is : (a) This diffi- culty concerning God's wrath only exists, when we view it anthrcpopathically . (b) Such a state of mind, though contra- dictory in a private person, who had nothing but personal con- siderations to govern him, is not inconsistent in a public Person, who has government interests to reconcile in pardoning, (c) It is His humanity which suffers the penal satisfaction. His divinity which demands it. (d) The objection is an argument «/5 ignor- antia. We do not know all the mystery of the persons in the Trinity, but have good reason to believe that the Son acts economically in the Covenant of Grace, as man's representa- tive, and the Father as that of all three persons.

4. Socinians object, that since an infinite number of sins are to be atoned, Christ must have paid an infinite penalty ; and therefore you must either make His humanity suffer forever, or else make His proper divinity suffer. If the latter alternative is taken, there are two absurdities. God is impassible. But 2d, if He can suffer at all, one single pang of pain was of infi- nite value (according to Calvinistic principles), and hence all the rest was superfluous cruelty in God.

The answers are : First. Infinite guilt demands an infinite How Could Temporal punishment, but not therefore an everlasting Suffering Satisfy for In- one; provided the sufferer could suffer an '""'^'^ ^'"^^- infinite one in a limited time. We do not

view the atoning value of Christ's sacrifice, as a quantity, to be divided out by pound's weight, like some material commodity. We do not hold that there must be an arithmetical relation between the quantity of sacrifice, and the number and size of the sins to be satisfied for; nor do we admit that, had the sins of the whole body of elect believers been greater, the suffer-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 515

ings of the substitute must also have been increased ; as when the merchant buys more pounds of the cornmodity, he must pay more money for his purchase. The compensation made to jus- tice is not commercial, but moral. A piece of money in the hand of a king is worth no more than in the hands of a ser- vant ; but the penal sufferings of a king are. One king captive would exchange for many captive soldiers. Hence, Christ paid, not the very total of sufferings we owed, but like sufferings, not of infinite amount, but of infinite dignity.

Christ's sufferings were vast ; and the capacity for feeling and enduring conferred on His humanity by the united divinity, enabled Him to bear, in one life-time, great wrath. Second. It is the great doctrine of hypostatical union, according to Heb. ix : 14, which grounds the infinite value of Christ's suffer- ings. (See that doctrine, Lect. 39th.) As the infinite nature of the God, against whom sin is committed, makes it an infinite evil, although the act of finite creature, so the acts of Christ's human nature in suffering, have infinite value, because of the dignity of His person. As to the latter part of the Socinian objection, the answer is, that one pang, or one drop of blood, would not suffice; because the law demanded a penalty of similar kind to that incurred by man ; a bodily death and a spiritual death.

The 5th, and most radical objection is, that imputation is at best a legal fiction ; and vicarious punish- Imputation not rnent intrinsically immoral. They say, God has pronounced it so; (Deut. xxiv : 16; Ezek. xviii : 4, 20,) and the moral sense of civilized common- wealths, banishing laws about hostages and avzalmyoc. They argue that the immorality of the act is nothing but that of the agent ; that desert of punishment is nothing but this intuitive judgment of immorality in the agent, when brought into rela- tion with law ; and therefore when penalty is separated from personal immorality, it loses its moral propriety wholly. Hence guilt must be as untransferable as immorality.

To the scriptural arguments, we answer : God forbids imputation of capital guilt by human mag- urS° heTeV° Men^^^' istrates ; or on special occasion, (Ezek. 18th.) foregoes the exercise of it for a time Himself; but that He customarily claims the exercise of it in His own government, See in Josh, vii : 15 ; Matt, xxiii : 35, The differ- ences between God's government and man's, fully explain this. Human magistrates are themselves under law, in common with those they rule ; God above law, and His will is law. They shortsighted ; He infinitely wise. They cannot find one who is entitled to offer his life for his neighbor, it is not his property ; God's substitute could dispose of His own life. (Jno. x: 18.) They, if the avxi<p\jy.-'i[o'z were found, could not ensure the repentance and reform of the released criminal ; without which his enlarge-

5l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ment is improper; God does. (Acts v: 31.) The human avTtipuyoz, having sacl'ificed his Hfe, could never resume it, and his loss to the community would be irreparable ; so that the transaction would give to society an injurious member, at the expense of taking from it a righteous and useful one. But Christ resumes the life laid down, and His useful position in the universe. For such reasons as these, it may be improper to have substitutes for capital guilt in man's government ; and yet very proper in God's.

This, of course, implies that it is only made with the free consent of the substitute. This Christ gave.

To the rational argument I reply : If the objection be (^O It proves too much, viz: that there True, then Pardon is can be no remission in God's government Immoral. ^^ ^^ Yox, when pardon is asserted on

the general plan of the Socinian and rationalist, the elements of guilt and immorality are distinguished and separated, i. e., the guilt is alienated from the sinning agent, while the bad char- acter remains his, so far as the pardoning act is concerned. Is not his own compunction the same as before ? Hence his repentance ; and the human reason apprehends that na state of soul is so appropriate to the pardoned man, as one that abounds in the heartfelt confessions of his ill desert. But we have proved irrefragably that God's rectoral justice includes the disposition to give appropriate penalty to sin, as truly, and in the same way, as His disposition to bestow appropriate reward on obedience. The two are correlative. If the one sort of legal sanction is not righteously separable from the personal attribute of the agent, even with his own consent, then the other sort (the penal) is not. But when God treats the holy Surety as guilty, (not immoral,) He makes the same separation of elements, which is made, if He should, (without vicarious satisfaction, as the rationalists say He does,) treat the guilty sinner as guiltless (not holy) by remitting a penalty of which he continues to confess himself personally deserving, (as God knows very well he is.)

(b.) If imputation of guilt (without personal immor- ality) to Christ is unjust, even with His own consent; then a fortiori, laying of sufferings upon Him without even imputed guilt, is still more unjust. This for the Socinian.

God, in His providential rule over mankind, often makes this separation between the personal bad cSlrSLSrSTo- character and penal consequences ; for the vidence and Society. punishments incurred in the course of nature by vice, descend to posterity ; while so far is He from imputing the personal unworthiness always along with the penalty, the patient and holy enduring of it is counted by Him an excellent virtue. So, too, the whole law of sympa- thy (Rom. xii: 15; Gal. vi : 2,) makes the sympathizer suffer

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 517

the penalty along with the sufferer, and yet, so far from treating him as personally defiled with him, regards it as an excellent virtue.

(d.) Man's own practical judgment habitually makes the separation of elements, which the rationalistic objection declares impossible , and we feel that the separation is right. Thus, when the voluntary security relieves the bankrupt debtor, it is only at the cost of what is to him a true mulct (precisely the penalty of the debtor's prodigality), and we feel the security is rightly made to pay ; but so far is this from being due to his personal demerit in the transaction, we feel that he is acting gen- erously and nobly. So, we feel that we justly insist on main- taining certain social disabilities against children, incurred by parents' crimes, at the very time we approve the former, as per- sonally, deserving people.

Thus, by indirect refutation, we prove that the objection of the rationalist to imputation, and the analysis on which he founds it, cannot be true, whether we are able to specify its error or not.

But I think we can specify it. It is in ignoring the broad dis- tinction which divines make between poten- Actoal oSlr^'^^ ^""^ tial and" actual guilt— i. e., between the qual- ity of ill-desert, and the obligation to punish- met. Consider the objector's process (fairly stated above), and it will be seen that it is this : Because the judgment we have of the ill-desert of the bad agent is nothing else than the judgment we had of his badness, viewed in its relation to law, therefore his guilt (obligation to penalty) is as personal and inseparable to him, as his quality of badness. This is sophism. The true analysis is this.

The badness of the act is nothing else than the badness of the agent; and is his personal quality or attribute. The judg- ment of ill-desert arises immediately therefrom, when his quality is viewed in relation to law. True. But what is law ? Relig- ion's law is nothing else than God's will, which is its source and measure. So that, as our judgment of the attribute of badness takes the form of a judgment of ill-desert, it passes into a judg- ment of relation — i. e., between two persons, the sinner and God. So that even potential guilt is rather a relation than an attrib- ute. But when we pass to actual guilt (which is merely obli- gation to penalty, a moral obligation, as I grant, and not one of force only), this is not the sinner's attribute at all ; but purely a relation. And although its rise was mediated by the personal attribute of badness, expressed in the guilty acts, it is not a relation of that attribute, abstracted, to something else, but of his person to the will of God — i. e., to God willing. And in this obligation to penalty, this sovereign will is obligator. It is God's sovereignty, which, though moral, is absolute, that imposes it. Now, without teaching that God's will is the sole

5l8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

source of moral distinctions, or retracting anything that I have said against that error, I remark, that far too httle weight is attached, in the objection, to this great fact that this obHgation to penalty, which we denominate guilt, is one imposed by the sovereign and omnipotent will of our Maker and Proprietor. Let the mind take in this fact properly, and it will appear how rash is the assertion that even He may not, without immorality, separate from the person qualified by the attribute of badness, this relation to penalty, which His own holy will imposes, even though the party to whom the guilt is transferred freely assents ; and the divine ends in the transaction are those of holiness.

But to return : It appears that the agent's badness is his attribute, his guilt is his relation ; and that, a relation to another Person and will. The two elements belong to different cate- gories in logic ! But did any sound mind ever admit this as a universal and necessary law of logic (which it must be, to make the objection conclusive): that relations are as untransferable as attributes ; as inseparable from the things related ? Is it so in geometry ? But it is better to show, in analogous cases, that it is not so in metaphysics ; e. g., A. expresses, by acts of bene- ficence towards me, his quality of benevolence, which institutes between us, as persons, the relation of an obligation to grati- tude from me to him. A. is succeeded by his son ; and this obli- gation, in some degree, transfers itself and attaches itself to that son, irrespective of, and in advance of, his exhibiting the quality of benevolence for me, in his own personal acts. I pre- sent another illustration which is also an argument, because it presents an exact analogy — the obligation to recompense — resting on me by reason of A's benefactions to me. I say we have here a true, complete analogy; because this title to recom- pense from the object of beneficent acts is a fair counterpart to the obligation to bear a penalty from the ruler, who is the object (or injured party) of the bad act. Now, I ask — e, g. : In 2 Sam. xix ; 31-38, was it incompetent for Barzillai, the Gilead- ite, to ask the transfer of King David's obligation to recom- pense to his son Chimham, on the ground of his own loyalty ? Did not David's conscience recognize his moral right to make the transfer ? But it is made irrespective of the transfer of Barzillai's attribute of loyalty to his son, which, indeed, was out of the question. Here, then, is the very separation which I claim, as made, in the case of imputation, between the sinner's personal attribute (badness), and his personal relation to God's sovereign will, arising upon his badness (guilt).

This discussion is of fundamental importance also, in the doctrines of original sin and justification.

The question of the " extent of the atonement," as it has ™ . ^ been awkwardly called, is one of the most

2. I heories of extent i-rc i, • .111 r /^ 1 • • . •

of the Atonement. uilhcult m the whoIe range of Calvmistic

Theology. That man who should profess to

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5l;

see no force In the objections to our views, would only betray the shallowness of his mind and knowledge. There are three grades of opinion on this subject.

The theory of the Semi-Pelagian denies any proper impu- tation of anv one's sins to Christ, makes His RefuSd^'"'"^^^^^'"'' suffering a mere general exhibition of God's wrath against sin, having no relation to one person's sin in particular ; and of course it consistently makes the atonement perfectly general and indefinite.

The refutation of this view is found in the facts already argued ; that there was a substitution, a vicarious suffering of penalty, and a purchasing of the gracious gifts for the redeemed which make up the application of redemption.

The Wesleyan view is, that there was a substitution and an imputation ; and that Christ provided a eseyan. penal satisfaction for every individual of the

human race, making His sins remissible, provided he believes in Christ ; and that He also purchased for every man the remission of original sin, and the gift of common grace, which confers a self-determing power of will, and enables any one to believe and repent, provided he chooses to use the free-will thus graciously repaired aright ; God's purpose of election being conditioned on His foresight of how each sinner would improve it.

The fatal objections to this scheme are, particularly, that it is utterly overthrown by unconditional election, which we have proved, and that the Scriptures and experience both con- tradict this common grace. But of this, more hereafter.

The view of the Hypothetical Universalists was professedly Calvinistic, and was doubtless, and is, sin- 3 . myrauts. cerely held in substance by many honest

and intelligent Calvinists, (e. g., Richard Baxter, R. Hall, Bel- lamy) although Turrettin and Dr. Hodge condemn it as little better than Arminianism in disguise. It presents the divine plan in redemption thus : God decreed from eternity, to create the human race, to permit the fall; then in His infinite compassion. to send Christ to atone for every human being's sins, (conditioned on his believing); but also foreseeing that all, in consequence of total depravity and the bondage of their will, would inevita- bly reject this mercy if left to themselves, He selected out of the whole a definite number of elect, to whom He also gave, in His sovereign love, grace to " make them willing in the day of His power." The non-elect, never enjoying this persuasive grace, infallibly choose to reject the provided atonement ; and so, as its application is suspended on faith, they fail to receive the benefit of it, and perish.

This theory, if amended so as to say that God sent His

Son to provide a vicarious satisfaction for the

^^^ ■ sin of all whom His Providence intended to

520 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

place under the Gospel offers, would be liable to less objection than the others. But several objections lie against it. In the first place, the advantage proposed to be gained by it appears illusory. It was hoped that this view would meet the cavils urged by Arminians against the seeming lack of candour in offering Christ's sacrifice for reconciliation, to those for whom God never designed it. But I submit that this cavil is not in the least dissolved by saying, that God designed Christ's sac- rifice to provide satisfaction for every non-elect man's guilt, which would avail for his atonement only on condition of his true faith, while the omniscience of God showed him that this sinner would certainly refuse this faith, in consequence of his total depravity, and God's purpose was distinctly formed not to remove that depravity by His effectual grace. To say that God purposed, even conditionally, the reconciliation of that sinner by Christ's sacrifice, while also distinctly proposing to do noth- ing effectual to bring about the fulfillment of the condition He knew the man would surely refuse, is contradictory. It is hard to see how, on this scheme, the sacrifice is related more bene- ficially to the non-elect sinner, than on the strict Calvinist's plan. Second : The statement of Amyraut involves the same vice of arrangement pointed out in the supralapsarian and sub- lapsarian plans : it tends towards assigning a sequence to the parts of the decree, as it subsists in God's mind. He thinks and purposes it as one cotemporaneous, mutually connected whole. The student is referred to the remarks already made upon this error. Third, and chiefly, Armyraut has to represent the graces which work effectual calling, while free and unmerited, indeed, as yet the free gift of the Father's electing love, irre- spective of Christ's purchase, (for that is represented as made in common for all) and not mediated to the elect sinner through Christ's sacrifice. Since Christ's intercession is expressly grounded in His sacrifice, we shall have to conceive of the benefit of effectual calling as also not mediated to the sinner by Christ's intercession. But this is all contrary to Scripture ; which represents Christ as the channel, through which all saving benefits come, and the very graces which fulfil the instrumental conditions of salvation as a part of His purchase for His peo- ple. See, for instance. Acts v : 31 ; Rom, viii : 32; Eph. i : 3, 4 ; 2 Tim. i : 9 ; Titus, ii : 14 ; 2 Pet. i : 2, 3.

The view of the strict Calvinist is as follows: God de- ^ . ^ , . . . creed to create the race, to permit the fall,

4. Strict Camnistic. j-i • ir- • n -i. • tt

and then, m His mnnite compassion, He elected out of the fallen an innumerable multitude, chosen in Christ, to be delivered from this ruin ; and for them Christ was sent, to make full penal satisfaction for their unrighteousness, and purchase for them all graces of effectual calling and spiritual life and bodily resurrection, which make up a complete redemp- tion, by His righteousness and intercession founded thereon.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 521

It represents the Atonement as limited only by the secret inten- tion of God as to its application, and not in its own sufficiency for, or adaptation to all. Symmetrical theory, but attended with some difficulties.

In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach

Inconclusive Proofs, i. i-ir i. c j.i. j.

but partial force to some oi the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin. e. g. That Christ says, He died " for His sheep," for " His Church," for " His friends," &c., is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object. Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent; but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Saviour, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369.

But the irrefragable grounds on which we vin^sh^c TlTeo'^"^ ^^" P^ove that the redemption is particular are

these :

(a) From the doctrines of unconditional election, and the ^ Covenant of Grace. (Argument is one, for

From Decree. ^ ^r/- • ^ i. x.ri

Covenant 01 Grace is but one aspect 01 elec- tion). The Scriptures tell us that those who are to be saved in Christ are a number definitely elected and given to Him from eternity, to be redeemed by His mediation. How can anything be plainer from this than that there was a purpose in God's atonement, as to them, other than that it had as to the rest of mankind ? See Scriptures.

(b) The immutability of God's purposes. (Is. xlvi : 10; 2

Tim. ii : 19). If God ever intended to save taH% a?d°Power" ^ny soul in Christ, [and He has a definite

intention to save or not to save towards every soul], that soul will certainly be saved. Jno. x : 27, 28 ; vi : 37-40. Hence, all whom God ever intended to save in Christ will be saved. But some souls will never be saved ; therefore some souls God never intended to be saved by Christ's atone- ment. The strength of this argument can scarcely be over- rated. Here it is seen that a limit as to the intention of the

522 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

atonement must be asserted to rescue God's power, purpose and wisdom.

(c) The same fact is proved by this, that Christ's interces-

sion is hmited. (See Jno. xvii : 9, 20). We Christ's Intercession ^^^^ ^^^^ Christ's intercession is always

Limited. ... . \ "rr

prevalent. (Rom. via : 34 ; Jno. xi : 42). it He interceded for all, all would be saved. But all wdll not be saved. Hence there are some for whom He does not plead the merit of His atonement. But He is the " same yesterday, to- day and forever." Hence there were some for whom, when He made atonement, He did not intend to plead it.

(d) Some sinners (i. e., elect), receive from God gifts of ' conviction, regeneration, faith, persuading and

enabling them to embrace Christ, and thus make His atonement effectual to themselves ; while other sin- ners do not. But these graces are a part of the purchased redemption, and bestowed through Christ. Hence His redemp- tion was intended to affect some as it did not others. (See above).

(e) Experience proves the same. A large part of the human race were already in hell before the atonement was made. Another large part never hear of it. But "faith com- eth by hearing." (Rom. x), and faith is the condition of its application. Since their condition is determined intentionally by God's providence, it could not be His intention that the atonement should avail for them equally with those who hear and believe. This view is .destructive, particularly, of the Arminian scheme.

(f ) " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay

down his life for his friends." But the greater Chr[s°t's Love? "^^^ ° includes the less; whence it follows, that if God the Father and Christ cherished for a given soul the definite electing love which was strong enough to pay for him the sacrifice of Calvary, it is not credible that this , love would then refuse the less costly gifts of effectual calling and sustaining grace. This is the very argument of Rom. v : 10, and viii : 31-end. This inference would not be conclusive, if drawn merely from the benf^volence of God's nature, sometimes called in Scripture, " his love ; " but in every case of his defi- nite electing love, it is demonstrative.

Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma, that Christ, in design, died equal y for all. We are compelled to hold that He died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which He did not for Judas. No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed, as to man's total depravity towards God, his inability of will, God's decree, God's immutable attri- butes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omni- science and wisdom, and stop short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing par-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. ' 525

ticular redemption to this extent, at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other.

In a word, Christ's work for the elect does not merely put them in a salvable state ; but purchases for them a complete and assured salvation. To him who knows the depravity and bondage of his own heart, any less redemption than this would bring no comfort.

But the difficulties which beset the subject are great ; and But the Subject Dif- ^nless you differ from me, you will feel that ficult. (a) From Uni- the manner in which they are dealt with by versal Offer of Atone- gome Calvinistic writers, is unsatisfactory. The objections are of two classes : From the universal offer of atonement through Christ, and from Scrip- ture. The fact that God makes this offer literally universal^ cannot be doubted, nor must we venture to insinuate that He is not sincere therein. (Matt, xxviii : 19; Mark xvi : 16, 17). The usual answer given by Calvinists of the rigid school to this objection is, that God may sincerely offer this salvation to every creature, because, although not designed for all, it is in its nature sufficient for, and adapted to all. They say that since Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value, and as adequate for cover- ing all the sins of every sinner in the universe, as of one ; and since Christ bears the common nature of all sinners, and God's revealed, and not His secret, decretive, will is the proper rule of man's conduct, this satisfaction may be candidly offered to all. Arminians rejoin, that this implies an adoption of their concep- tion of the nature of the atonement, as a general satisfaction for human guilt as a mass and whole ; that the punishment of gospel-hardened sinners for unbelief (which we admit will occur), would be unjust on our scheme, since by it they would be punished for not believing what would not be true, if they had believed it ; and that since, on our scheme the believing of a non-elect sinner is not naturally, but only morally impossible, it is a supposable case for argument's sake, and this case sup- posed, God could not be sincere, unless such a sinner should be saved in Christ, supposing He came. The honest mind will feel these objections to be attended with real difficulty. Thus, in defining the nature of Christ vicarious work, Calvinists assert a proper substitution and imputation of individuals' sins. On the strict view, the sins of the non-elect were never imputed to Christ. The fact, then, that an infinite satisfaction was made for imputed guilt, does not seem to be a sufficient ground for offering the benefits thereof to those whose sins were never imputed.

The student should understand fully the ingenious perti- nacity, with which this line of objection is urged, and re-in- forced ; from the command which makes it all sinners' duty to believe on Christ for their own salvation ; from the alleged impos- sibility of their reaching any appropriating faith by the Calvin-

524 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

istic view, and from the various warnings of Scripture, which clearly contemplate the possible destruction of one for whom Christ died. Our opponents proceed thus. God commands every man to believe on Christ. But since only an appropri- ating faith saves, and since God of course calls for a saving faith, and not the faith of Devils : God commands every man to appropriate Christ by h's faith. But the man for whom Christ did not die has no right to appropriate Him : it would be erroneous presumption, and not faith. Again : both Roman- ists and Arminians object, that the strict Calvinistic scheme would make it necessary, for a man's mind to pass through and accept a paralogism, in order to believe unto salvation. This point may be found, stated with the utmost adroitness, in the works of Bellamy, {loco citato). He argues : if I know that Christ died only for the elect, then I must know whether I am elect, in order to be sure that He died for me. But God's elec- tion is secret, and it is mere fanaticism to pretend that I know my own election by direct revelation. My name is nowhere set down specifically in the Bible. That iDook directs me to find, out my election a posteriori, by finding in my own graces the results of the secret decree towards me. Thus I am shut up to this sophism, in order to obey God's command to believe : I must assume, in advance of proof, that I am elected, in order to attain through faith the Christian traits, by which alone I can infer that I am elected. The third argument is that founded on the warnings against apostasy. In Rom. xiv : 15, for instance, the Apostle cautions strong Christians " not to destroy, with their meat, those for whom Christ died." Hebrews x : 29, the apostate " counts the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." 2 Peter ii : i, heretics " even deny the Lord that bought them." Here, it is urged, Calvinists must either hold that some of the elect perish, or that Christ died for others than the elect.

The other class of objections is from the Scriptures ;

e cr

[b] From Texts Tliose which speak of Christ as having com- Teaching a Seeming passion for, or dving for, " the whole world," Universality. .. ^ii^" « ^^ ^^^^^ u ^^^^.^ ^^^^n ^^ j^^ j .

29 ; Jno. iii : 16 ; iv : 42 ; vi : 51 ; 2 Cor. v : 19 ; i Jno. ii : i, 2 ; Jno. xii : 32 ; I Cor. xv : 22 ; 2 Cor. v : 14, 1 5 ; i Tim. ii : 6 ; I Tim. iv : 10; Heb. ii : 9, &c. The usual explanation, offered by the strict Calvinists, of these texts is this : that terms seem- ingly universal often have to be limited to a universality witliin certain bounds by the context, as in Matt, iii : 5 ; that in New Testament times, especially when the gospel was receiving its grand extension from one little nation to all nations, it is reason- able to expect that strong affirmatives would be used as to its extent, which yet should be strained to mean nothing more than this : that persons of every nation in the world were given to Christ. Hence, " the world," " all the world," should be taken

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 525:

to mean no more than people of every nation in the world, without distinction, &c. There is a certain amount of justice in these views ; and many of these passages, as i Cor. xv : 22 ; Jno. i : 29, and xii : 32, may be adequately explained by them. The explanation is also greatly strengthened by this fact, too little pressed by Calvinists, that ultimately, the vast majority of the whole mass of humanity, including all generations, will be actually redeemed by Christ. There is to be a time, blessed be God, when literally all the then world will be saved by Christ, when the world will be finally, completely, and wholly lifted by Christ out of the gulf, and sink no more. So that there is a sense, most legitimate, in which Christ is the prospective Saviour of the world.

But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inappli- cable. In Jno. iii ; 16, make " the world " which Christ loved, to mean " the elect world ;" and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. v : 15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him — i. e., the elect — it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ. In i Jno. ii : 2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, " whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as " we," in verse first. The interpre- tation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated ? Is this catholic epistle ■ addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle's scope is, tO' console and encourage sinning believers with the thought, that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins.

Having made these candid admissions, I now return to test the opposing points above recited. I take "^^^"^^^ them in reversed order. The language of

Peter, and that of Hebrews x : 24, may receive an entirely ade- quate solution, without teaching that Christ actually " bought," or " sanctified " any apostate, by saying that the Apostles speak, there " ad homineuiy The crime of the heretic is justly en- hanced by the fact, that the Christ, whose truth he is now out- raging, is claimed by him as gracious Redeemer. It is always fair to hold a man to the results of his own assertions. This heretic says Christ has laid him under this vast debt of grati- tude : so much the worse then, that he should injure his asserted benefactor. But there is another view : The addressing of hypo- thetical warnings of apostasy or destruction to believers is wholly compatible with the efficacy of Christ's work, and the

526 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

immutability of God's counsel for them. For that couasel is executed in them, by moral and rational means, among which the force of truth holds the prime place. And among these truths, the fact that if they are not watchful and obedient, pro- fessed believers may fall, is most reasonably calculated to pro- duce watchfulness. But naturally speaking, they may fall ; for the impossibility of destroying the elect is only moral, proceed- ing from the secret purpose of God. This important view will be farther illustrated and defended when we argue the perseve- rance of the saints : where it will be found to have a similar application.

The second and first objections really receive the same solution. That the process described by Dr. Bellamy is a par- alogism, we freely admit. But Calvinists do not consider it as a fair statement of the mode in which the mind of a believer moves. Turrettin (Loc. xiv : Qu. 14, § 45, &c.) has given an exhaustive analysis of this difficulty, as well as of its kindred one. He had distinguished the reflex, from the direct actings of faith. He now reminds the objector, that the assurance of our own individual interest in God's purposes of mercy is reached only a posteriori, and by this reflex element of faith. The reflex element cannot logically arise, until the direct has scrip- tural place in the soul. What then is the objective proposition, on which every sinner is commanded to believe ? It is not, that "Christ designed His death expressly for me." But it is, " whosoever believeth shall be saved." This warrant is both .general and specific enough to authorize any man to venture on Christ. The very act of venturing on Him brings that soul within the whosoever. It is only voluntary unbelief which can ground an exclusion of any man from that invitation, so that it is impossible that any man, who wishes to come to Christ, can be embarrassed by any lack of warrant to come. But now, the soul, having believingly seen the warrant, "whosoever believeth shall be saved," and becoming conscious of its own hearty faith, draws, by a reflex act, the legitimate deduction ; " Since I believe, I am saved." Unless he has first trusted in the general invitation, we deny that he has any right, or that God makes it his duty, to draw that inference. Hence, we deny that God commands the sinner to believe himself elected, or to believe himself saved, by the primary act of his faith. The Armin- ian asks: Does not God, in requiring him to believe, require him to exercise all the parts of a saving faith? I reply: He does ; but not out of their proper order. He requires the lost sinner first to accept the general warrant, " whosoever will," in order that he may, thereby, proceed to the deduction ; " Since I have accepted it I am saved." Thus it appears, that in order for the sinner to see his warrant for coming to Christ, it is not necessary for him presumptuously to assume his own election ; but after he embraces Christ, he learns his

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 52/

election, in the scriptural way pointed out by Peter, from

his calling.

This seems, then, to be the candid conclusion : that

^ , . there is no pasaage in the Bible which asserts

Conclusion. • , . • , , ,

an mtention to apply redemption to any

others than the elect, on the part of God and Christ ; but that

there are passages which imply that Christ died for all sinners

in some sense, as Dr. Ch. Hodge has so expressly admitted.

Certainly the expiation made by Christ is so related to all,

irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to

enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires

salvation is warranted to appropriate it ; and that even a Judas,

had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out.

But the arguments which we adduced on the affirmative side of the question demonstrate that Christ's redeeming work was limited in intention to the elect. The Arminian dogma that He did the same redeeming work in every respect for all, is preposterous and unscriptural. But at the same time, if the Calvinistic scheme be strained as high as some are inclined, a certain amount of justice will be found against them in the Arminian objections. Therefore, In mediis tiitissime ibis. The well known Calvinistic formula, that "Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the Elect," must be taken in a sense consistent with all the passages of Scripture which are cited above.

I will endeavor to contribute what I can to the adjustment of this intricate subject in the form of a series of remarks.

The difficulty which besets this solemn subject is no doubt The Difficulty the !" P^^^ insuperable for finite minds. Indeed, Same as in the Decree, it is the same difficulty which besets the rela- te be Resolved in the tion of God's election to man's free aeencv

Same Way. i a , \ . . ° -^ '

•' (and not a new one), re-appearing m a new

phase ; for redemption is limited precisely by the decree, and by nothing else. We shall approximate a solution as nearly as is perhaps practicable for man, by considering the same truths to which we resort in the seeming paradox arrising from elec- tion. There are in the Bible two classes of truths ; those which are the practical rule of exertion for man in his own free agency; and those which are the recondite and non-practical explanations of God's action towards us ; e. g., in Jno. v : 40 is the one; in Jno. vi : 44 is the other. In Jno. 3: 36 is one; in 2 Thess. ii : 13 is the other. In Rev. xxii : 17 is one; in Rom. ix : 16 is the other. These classes of truths, when drawn face to face, often seem paradoxical ; but when we remember that God's sovereignty is no revealed rule for our action, and that our inability to do our duty without sovereign grace arises only from our voluntary depravity, we see that there is no real collision.

Now Christ is a true substitute. His sufferings were penal

528 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and vicarious, and made a true satisfaction not Commercial.^ '^'^ °" ^^^ ^^^ tliose who actually embrace them by faith. But the conception charged on us seems to be, as though Christ's expiation were a web of the garment of righteousness, to be cut into definite pieces, and dis- tributed out, so much to each person of the elect ; whence, of course, it must have a definite aggregate length, and had God seen fit to add any to the number of elect. He must have had an additional extent of web woven. This is all incorrect. Satisfaction was Christ's indivisible act, and inseparable vicarious merit, infinite in moral value, the whole in its unity and completeness, imputed to every believing elect man, without numerical divis- ion, substraction or exhaustion. Had there been but one elect man, his vicarious satisfaction had been just what it is in its essential nature. Had God elected all sinners, there would have been no necessity to make Christ's atoning sufferings essentially different. Remember, the limitation is precisely in the decree, and no where else. It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term " atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon ; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause ; the other effect. The only NewTestament sense the word atonement has is that of '/.ara/JMy/^, reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. KaTaA/Myij is personal. f'^cAaa/jto:; is impersonal. ka.zaJlayrj is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood : e^c/Maiio:^ is single, unique, complete ; and, in itself considered, has no more rela- tion to one man's sins than another. As it is applied in effect- ual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation,, the phrases, " limited atonement," " particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i. e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited.

There is no safer clue for the student through this per- plexed subject, than to take this proposition ; 3- God's Design and ^yhi^h, to every Cavanist, is nearly as indis- tensive. putable as a truism ; Christ s design in hlis

vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subse- quent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ's purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. Now, what does it actually effectuate ? " We know only in part ; " but so much is certain :

(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.

(b.) A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam's race who does not die at his birth. (For these we believe it has pur-

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Acts v: 31
  2. Rom. xii: 15

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

529

chased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substan- tial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are post- ponement of death and perdition, secular well-being, and the bounties of life.

(c.) A manifestation of God's mercy to many of the non- elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sin- cere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction ; because it is only the recipient's contumacy which disappoints it.

(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God's righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.

(e.) A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God's compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures.

Had there been no mediation of Christ, we have not a parti- cle of reason to suppose that the doom of our sinning race would have been delayed one hour longer than that of the fallen angels. Hence, it follows, that it is Christ who pro- cures for non-elect sinners all that they temporarily enjoy, which is more than their personal deserts, including the sincere offer of mercy. In view of this fact, the scorn which Dr. William Cunningham heaps on the distinction of a special, and general design in Christ's satisfaction, is thoroughly short- sighted. All wise beings (unless God be the exception), at times frame their plans so as to secure a combination of results from the same means. This is the very way they display their ability and wisdom. Why should God be supposed incapable of this wise and fruitful acting ? I repeat ; the design of Christ's sacrifice must have been to effectuate just what it does effectu- ate. And we see, that, along with the actual redemption of the elect, it works out several other subordinate ends. There is then a sense, in which Christ "died for " all those ends, and for the persons affected by them.

, The manner in which a volition which dates from eter- nity, subsists in the Infinite mind, is doubt- 4. God'sVolitionsArise less, in many respects, inscrutable to us. But

out of a Complex 01 . ^ , . •' F, ' . -ulil

Motive. smce God has told us that we are made in His

image, we may safely follow the Scriptural representations, which describe God's volitions as having their rational relation to subjective motive j somewhat as in man, when he wills aright. For, a motiveless volition cannot but appear to us as devoid both of character and of wisdom. We add, that while God " has no parts nor passions," He has told us that He has active principles, which, while free from all agi- tation, ebb and flow, and mutation, are related in their superior measure to man's rational affections. These active principles in God, or passionless affections, are all absolutely holy and 34*

530 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

good. Last : God's will is also regulated by infinite wisdom. Now, in man, every rational volition is prompted by a motive, which is in every case, complex to this degree, at least that it involves some active appetency of the will and some prevalent judgment of the intelligence. And every wise volition is the result of virtual or formal deliberation, in which one element of motive is weighed in relation to another, and the elements which appear superior in the judgment of the intelligence, pre- ponderate and regulate the volition. Hence, the wise man's volition is often far from being the expression of every con- ception and affection present in his consciousness at the time ; but it is often reached by holding one of these elements of pos- sible motive in check, at the dictate of a more controlling one. For instance a philanthropic man meets a distressed and desti- tute person. The good man is distinctly conscious in himself of a movement of sympathy tending towards a volition to give the sufferer money. But he remembers that he has expressly promised all the money now in his possession, to be paid this very day to a just creditor. The good man bethinks himself, that he " ought to be just before he is generous," and conscience and wisdom counterpoise the impulse of sympathy ; so that it does not form the deliberate volition to give alms. But the sympathy f^xists, and it is not inconsistent to give other express- ion to it. We must not ascribe to that God whose omniscience is, from eternity, one infinite, all-embracing intuition, and whose volition is as eternal as His being, any expenditure of time in any process of deliberation, nor any temporary hesitancy or uncertainty, nor any agitating struggle of feeling against feeling. But there must be a residiiiuii of meaning in the Scripture rep- resentations of His affections, after we have guarded our- selves duly against the anthropopathic forms of their expression. Hence, we ought to believe, that in some ineffable way, God's volitions, seeing they are supremely wise, and profound, and right, do have that relation to all His subjective motives, digested by wisdom and holiness into the consistent combina- tion, the finite counterpart of which constitutes the rightness and wisdom of human volitions. I claim, while exercising the diffidence proper to so sacred a matter, that this conclusion bears us out at least so far: That, as in a wise man, so much more in a wise God, His volition, or express purpose, is the result of a digest, not of one, but of all the principles and con- siderations bearing on the case. Hence it follows, that there may be in God an active principle felt by Him, and yet not ex- pressed in His executive volition in a given case, because coun- terpoised by other elements of motive, which His holy omnis- cence judges ought to be prevalent. Now, I urge the practical question : Why may not God consistently give some other expression to this active principle, really and sincerely felt towards the object, though His sovereign wisdom judges it not

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 53 1

proper to express it in volition ? To return to the instance from which we set out : I assert that it is entirely natural and reasonable for the benevolent man to say to the destitute person : " I am sorry for you, though I give you no alms." The ready objection will be : "that my parallel does not hold, because the kind man is not omnipotent, while God is. God could not con- sistently speak thus, while withholding alms, because he could create the additional money at will." This is more ready than solid. It assumes that God's omniscence cannot see any ground, save the lack of physical ability or power, why it may not be best to refrain from creating the additional money. Let the student search and see ; he will find that this preposterous and presumptuous assumption is the implied premise of the objection. In fact, my parallel is a fair one in the main point. This benevolent man is not prevented from giving the alms, by any physical compulsion. If he diverts a part of the money in hand from the creditor, to the destitute man, the creditor will visit no penalty on him. He simply feels bound by his con- science. That is, the superior principles of reason and morality are regulative of his action, counterpoising the amiable but less imperative principle of sympathy, in this case. Yet the verbal expression of sympathy in this case may be natural, sincere, and proper. God is not restrained by lack of physical omnipotence from creating on the spot the additional money for the alms ; but He may be actually restrained by some consideration known to His omniscience, which shows that it is not on the whole best to resort to the expedient of creating the money for the alms, and that rational consideration may be just as decis- ive in an all-wise mind, and properly as decisive, as a conscious impotency to create money in a man's.

This view is so important here, and will be found so valu- The Motive not Ex- ^t)le in another place, that I beg leave to give ecuted may be Ex- it farther illustration. It is related that the P^^^^^*^" great Washington, when he signed the death-

warrant of the amiable but misguided Andre, declared his pro- found grief and sympathy. Let us suppose a captious invader present, and criticising Washington's declaration thus : " You are by law of the rebel congress, commander-in-chief You have absolute power here. If you felt any of the generous sorrow you pretend, you would have thrown that pen into the fire, instead of using it to write the fatal words. The fact you do the latter proves that you have not a shade of sympathy, and those declarations are sheer hypocrisy." It is easy to see how impudent and absurd this charge would be. Physically, Washington had full license, and muscular power, to throw the pen into the fire. But he was rationally restrained from doing so, by motives of righteousness and patriotism, which were properly as decisive as any physical cause. Now, will the objector still urge, that with God it would have been different,

532 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

in this case ; because His omnipotence might have enabled Him to overrule, in all souls, British and Americans, all inconven- ient results that could flow from the impunity of a spy caught hi flagrante delicto ; and that so, God could not give any expression to the infinite benevolence of His nature, and yet sign the death-warrant, without hypocrisy ? The audacity of this sophism is little less than the other. How obvious is the reply : That as in the one case, though Washington was in pos- session of the muscular ability, and also of an absolute license, to burn the death-warrant, if he chose ; and yet his wisdom and virtue showed him decisive motives which rationally restrained him from it ; so God may have full sovereignty and omnipo- tence to change the heart of the sinner whose ruin He compas- sionates, and yet be rationally restrained from doing it, by some decisive motives seen in His omniscience. What is it, but logical arrogance run mad, for a puny creature to assume to say, that the infinite intelligence of God may not see, amidst the innumerable affairs and relations of a universal government stretching from creation to eternity, such decisive considera- tions ?

The great advantage of this view is, that it enables us to

Scriptures Ascribe to receive, in their obvious sense, those precious God Pity Towards declarations of Scripture, which declare the

^^^' pity of God towards even lost sinners. The

glory of these representations is, that they show us God's benevolence as an infinite attribute, like all His other perfec- tions. Even where it is rationally restrained, it exists. The fact that there is a lost order of angels, and that there are per- sons in our guilty race, who are objects of God's decree of pre- terition, does not arise from any stint or failure of this infinite benevolence. It is as infinite, viewed as it qualifies God's nature only, as though He had given expression to it in the sal- vation of all the devils and lost men. We can now receive, without any abatement, such blessed declarations as Ps. Ixxxi : 13 ; Ezek. xviii : 32 ; Luke xix : 41, 42. We have no occasion for such questionable, and even perilous exegesis, as even Cal- vin and Turrettin feel themselves constrained to apply to the last. Afraid lest God's principle of compassion (not pur- pose of rescue), towards sinners non-elect, should find any expression, and thus mar the symmetry of their logic, they say that it was not Messiah the God-man and INIediator, who wept over reprobate Jerusalem ; but only the humanity of Jesus, our pattern. I ask : Is it competent to a mere humanity to say : " How often would I have gathered your children ? " And to pronounce a final doom, " Your house is left unto you deso- late ? " The Calvinist should have paused, when he found him- self wresting these Scriptures from the same point of view adopted by the ultra-Arminian. But this is not the first time we have seen " extremes meet." Thus argues the Arminian :

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 533

*' Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has a pro- pension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. Therefore, as He declares He had a propension of pity towards contumacious Israel, I conclude that He also had a volition to redeem them, and that He did whatever omnipo- tence could do, against the obstinate contingency of their wills. Here then, I find the bulwark of my doctrine, that even omnipotence cannot certainly determine a free will." And thus argues the ultra-Calvinist : " Since God is sov- ereign and omnipotent, if He has any propension. He in- dulges it, of course, in volition and action. But if He had willed to convert reprobate Israel, He would infallibly have suc- ceeded. Therefore He never had any propension of pity at all towards them." And so this reasoner sets himself to explain away, by unscrupulous exegesis, the most precious revelations of God's nature ! Should not this fact, that two opposite con- clusions are thus drawn from the same premises, have suggested error in the premises ? And the error of both extremists is just here. It is not true that if God has an active principle looking towards a given object, He will always express it in volition and action. This, as I have shown, is no more true of God, than of a righteous and wise man. And as the good man, who was touched with a case of destitution, and yet deter- mined that it was his duty not to use the money he had in giv- ing alms, might consistently express what he truly felt of pity, by a kind word ; so God consistently reveals the principle of compassion as to those whom, for wise reasons. He is deter- mined not to save. We know that God's omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace. Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ's sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it per- fectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin — expiation of infinite value and universal fitness — should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non-elect, as a mani- festation of the benevolence of God's nature. God here ex- hibits a provision, which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner's return to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obsta- cles exists ; those, namely, arising out of the sinner's own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by, their Mediator. As to the non-elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way ; the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ. But it will be objected: If God foreknew that non-elect

^, . ^. c 1 J iTien would do this ; and also knew that Objections Solved. . . . . ' , i i • r i

their neglect of gospel-mercy would inial-

534 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

libly aggravate their doom in the end, (all of which I admit), then that gospel was no expression of benevolence to them at all. I reply, first; the offer was a blessing in itself; these sinners felt it so in their serious moments ; and surely its nature as a kindness is not reversed by the circumstance that they pervert it; though that be foreseen. Second; God accompanies the offer with hearty entreaties to them not thus to abuse it. Third ; His benevolence is cleared in the view of all other beings, though the perv^erse objects do rob themselves of the permanent benefit. And this introduces the other cavil: That such a dispensation towards non-elect sinners is utterly futile, and so, unworthy of God's wisdom. I reply : It is not futile ; because it secures actual results both to non-elect men, to God and to the saved. To the first, it secures many temporal restraints and blessings in this life, the secular ones of which, at least, the sinner esteems as very solid benefits ; and also a sincere offer of eternal life, which he, and not God, disappoints. To God, this dispensation secures great revenue of glory, both for His kindness towards contumacious enemies, and His clear justice in the final punishment. To other holy creatures it brings not only this new revelation of God's glory, but a new apprehension of the obstinacy and malignity of sin as a spiri- tual evil.

Some seem to recoil from the natural view which presents God, like other wise Agents, as planning to gain several ends, one primary and others subordinate, by the same set of actions. They fear that if they admit this, they will be entrap- ped into an ascription of uncertainty, vacillation and change to God's purpose. This consequence does not at all follow, as to Him. It might follow as to a finite man pursuing alternative purposes. For instance, a general might order his subordinate to make a seeming attack in force on a given point of his enemy's position. The general might say to himself: " I will make this attack either a feint, (while I make my real attack elsewhere), or, if the enemy seem weak there, my real, main attack." This, of course, implies some uncertainty in his fore- knowledge ; and if the feint is turned into his main attack, the last purpose must date in his mind from some moment after the feint began. Such doubt and mutation must not be imputed to God. Hence I do not employ the phrase " alternative objects " of His planning ; as it might be misunderstood. We "cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection." But it is certain, that He, when acting on finite creatures, and for the instruction of finite minds, may and does pursue, in one train of His dealings, a plu- rality of ends, of which one is subordinated to another. Thus God consistently makes the same dispensation first a manifest- ation of the glory of His goodness, and then, when the sinner has perverted it, of the glory of His justice. He is not disap- pointed, nor does He change His secret purpose. The muta-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 535

tion is in the relation of the creature to His providence. His

glory is, that seeing the end from the beginning, He brings

good even out of the perverse sinner's evil.

There is, perhaps, no Scripture which gives so thorough

^, . ^, . , and comprehensive an explanation of the

This Christ s own j • j ii. r /^i- • i.> -r

Explanation. design and results of Christ s sacrifice, as

Jno. iii : 16-19. ^^ ^^Y receive important illustration from Matt, xxii : 4. In this last parable, the king sends this message to invited guests who, he foresees, would reject and never partake the feast. " My oxen and my fatlings are killed : come, for all things are now ready." They alone were unready. I have already stated one ground for rejecting that interpretation of Jno. iii : i6, which makes "the world" which God so loved, the elect world, I would now, in conclu- sion, simply indicate, in the form of a free paraphrase, the line of thought developed by our Redeemer, trusting that the ideas already expounded will suffice, with the coherency and con- sistency of the exposition, to prove its correctness.

Verse i6 : Christ's mission to make expiation for sin is a manifestation of unspeakable benevolence to the whole world, to man as man and a sinner, yet designed specifically to result in the actual salvation of believers. Does not this imply that this very mission, rejected by others, will become the occasion (not cause) of perishing even more surely to them ? It does. Yet, (verse 17,) it is denied that this vindicatory result was the primary design of Christ's mission : and the initial assertion is again repeated, that this primary design was to manifest God, in Christ's sacrifice, as compassionate to all. How then is the seeming paradox to be reconciled ? Not by retracting either statement. The solution, (verse 18,) is in the fact, that men, in the exercise of their free agency, give opposite receptions to this mission. To those who accept it as it is offered, it brings life. To those who choose to reject it, it is the occasion (not cause) of condemnation. For, (verse 19,) the true cause of this perverted result is the evil choice of the unbelievers, who reject the provision offered in the divine benevolence, from a wicked motive ; unwillingness to confess and forsake their sins. The sum of the matter is then : That Christ's mission is, to the whole race, a manifestation of God's mercy. To believers it is means of salvation, by reason of that effectual calling which Christ had expounded in the previous verses. To unbelievers it becomes a subsequent and secondary occasion of aggravated doom. This melancholy perversion, while embraced in God's permissive decree, is caused by their own contumacy. The efficient in the happy result is effectual calling : the efficient in the unhappy result is man's own evil will. Yet God's benevo- lence is cleared, in both results. Both were, of course, fore- seen by Him, and included in His purpose.

Lecture XLIV SYLLABUS

1. What results flow from Christ's sacrifice, as to God's glorj', and other Worlds ?

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu, 3, and 4. Symington on the Atonement, § 4. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 6. Hodge on Atonement, pt. ii.

2. Is Christ's Satisfaction for Believers so complete as to leave no room for Pen- ance and Purgatory ? State the Romish doctrines, with their Arguments and Replies.

Turretdn, Loc. xiv, Qu. 12. Calvin, Inst. bk. iii, ch. 5. Council of Trent. Session xxv. Bellarmine, Controversia, Vol. ii, p. 285. &c. Peter Dens, Moral Theo., Berg's Abridg., p. 502. Dick, Lect. 81. "Essays on Ro- manism," Presbyn. Bd., Phila. 19. Mosheim, Com. de Reb. Chr. ante Con- stantinum. Vol. ii, p^ 38. Neander, Ch. Hist. Vol. i, p. 217, &c., ii, p. 675, Torrey.

T2EFORE I proceed to that which is to be the chief topic of this lecture, the exchision of the whole doctrine of pen- ance and purgatory by the completeness of tion 'rifherl^"^"'"^" Christ's satisfaction, let us advert for a mo- ment to the point raised at the close of the last lecture. This was concerning the effects of the atone- ment on the glory of God, and creatures other than the elect. The Scriptures tell us that Christ " took not on Him the Angels not Redeemed nature of angels." This, with kindred dec- by Christ, but Instructed larations, assures US that He is not the Medi- anc c eere , ^^^^ ^^ angels ; as they need no express

mediation. Yet many passages show that they have a certain interest in the work of Christ. Examine i Pet. 1:12; Eph. i : 10 ; Col. i : 20 ; Eph. iii : 10 ; Phil, ii : 10 ; Heb. i : 6. Now, we should greatly err, if, for instance, we understood such a passage as Col. i : 20, as teaching that the Messiah has " recon- ciled " any angels to God, by suffering penal satisfaction and making intercession for thern. For the elect angels never had any sins to suffer for ; and we are assured that Satan and his angels will never be reconciled to God. What, then, is the concern of the heavenly orders, with Christ's mediatorial work ? First, the Scriptures abundantly teach us that this work enhances the declarative glory of God. The Se^n^'atdS^bMn^gi^" Mediator is proposed to us and to all crea- tures likewise, as " the image of the invisi- ble God," " the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person." But Christ's mission and character are those of ineffable benevolence, pity, love, and tenderness ; as well as of purity, devotion, magnanimity, and righteousness. Hence, all creatures receive, in His incarnation and work, a revelation of God's character peculiarly dear to them ; to the holy, as truly as the unholy. The holy angels now know, love, trust, and serve their Jehovah, as they would not have done, had they 536

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 537

not learned better these lovely perfections, in the person and work of Christ. God, in taking on Him the nature of one creature, man, has come nearer to all creatures, and opened up new channels of communion with them. All the creatures had important things in common, a dependent nature, intellect, con- science and will, responsibility, and an immortal destiny to win or lose. God, in uniting Himself to one nature, has, in a cer- tain sense, united Himself to the whole class ; the condescen- sion does not avail man alone, but brings God nearer to all orders. Thus, humanity appears to be a kind of iiex7is, or point of contact between God and all the holy creatures. And thus, it appears that the extent and grandeur of the beneficent results of the incarnation are not to be measured by the com- parative smallness of the earth and man amidst the other parts of creation. It appears how it may be most worthy of God, to have selected the most insignificant of His rational creatures, as well as the ones who were guilty, for this hypostatic union with Himself; because thereby the designed condescension to, and unification of all creatures, in heavenly communion and love, would be more complete and glorious. The lowest nature best answered the purposes. When Mrs. Elizabeth Fry was moved by God's grace to manifest the beauty of Christian philanthropy, she went to the female felons in Newgate. By going to the very bottom of the scale of moral degradation she displayed a love marked by perfect and entire beauty and condescension. Her love was shown to be the highest, because its objects were the lowest. This view of our Redeemer's choice of objects also gives the best answer to the cavil discussed in Dr. Chal- mers' "Astronomical Discourses." It had been objected, that the Christian scheme could only seem probable in connection with the old Ptolemaic astronomy, which made the earth the centre of the whole heavens. For, when once it was found that this earth was a very small planet in our system, it would appear very absurd, that the Lord of all this host of worlds should die for a little speck among them. The point of Dr. Chalmers' reply was to show, that to God's immensity, no world is really great, and all are infinitesimally small. The more complete answer is that which I have suggested above.

It is also the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice, coupled with His proper divinity, which enables us to complete our " theodicy" of the permission of evil. In the end of Lect. v : the dimen- sions of this fearful question : Why a holy, sovereign, omnipo- tent and benevolent God should permit the natural and moral evil, repugnant to His pure and good nature, to enter His dominions, were intimated, and also the insufficiency of the Pelagian, and the optimistic replies. It is the sacrifice of Christ which gives the humble believer, not a solution, but a satisfying reply. There must have been a reason, and a good one, and it must have been one implying no stint or defect of God's holi-

538

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ness or benevolence. For had there been in God the least defect of either, he certainly would never have found it in His heart to send His infinite Son, more great and important than all worlds, to redeem any one. Note, that the Unitarian, who makes Christ a creature, cannot use this theodicy ! The same argument shows, that the secret reason for Esau's preterition must have been both right and benevolent : because Christ's sacrifice for sinful Jacob alone demonstrates a nature of infinite goodness.

But God not only enhances the manifestation of His ^ , attribute of benevolence, by the incarnation

His Attributes. ^f the Son. All His other moral perfections

and His wisdom are equally exalted. His justice, impartiality, holiness, and determination to punish guilt, appear far more in Christ's penal sufferings, than in the damnation of Satan and of wicked men. For they being His mere creatures, easily replaced by His creative power, insig- nificant to His well being, and personally injurious to His rights and character, it was easy and natural to punish them as they deserve. Cavilling spirits might say, with a show of plausi- bility, that resentment alone, rather than pure justice and holi- ness, may have prompted Him to their doom. But when the Father proceeds, with equal inflexibility, to exact the penalty of His own Son, a being infinitely glorious, united by identity of nature and eternal love to the Judge, characterized personally by infinite moral loveliness, only the more lovely by this act of splendid devotion, and only concerned by voluntary substitu- tion with the guilt of sinners ; there is an exhibition of unques- tionable and pure justice, impossible to be carried further. So the faithfulness of God to His covenants is displayed in the most wondrous and exalted degree. When God's truth finds such a manifestation in His threats, it appears as the equally infallible ground of our trust in His promises. Now, as these qualities are the basis of the hope of the ransomed sinners, so they are the source of the trust and confidence of all the heavenly orders. Their bliss is not purchased by the Cross ; but it reposes on the divine perfections which are displayed on the Cross.

The general idea of a Purgatory, that is, of temporary 2. Pumatorial Ideas penal and purging pains beyond the grave, Cotiimon to all Praise to be followed by eternal blessedness, is the Religions. common characteristic of all false religions.

It seems to be adopted in some form, by all minds not cor- rected by revelation ; by Pythagoreans, Platonists, the Jewish Mishnical doctors, (ii Mac. ii : 12 ; Josephus and Philo), by the Latins from the Greeks, (Virgil, yEneid 6th. Ergo cxcrcciitiir panis vctcrunique inaloriini siipplicia expend imt) by the Moham- medans, the Brahmins, &c. There are two very strong and natural sources for this tendency : first the prompting of our

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 539

affections to follow our dead friends with labours for their benefit and hope ; and second, the obstinate reluctance of a heart at once guilty and in love with sin, to be shut up between the sharp alternatives of present repentance, or final damnation. The idea of a purgatory offers a third alternative by which the deceitful heart may for a time solace itself in sin.

The idea came early into the Christian Church, through two channels ; a Jewish, through their per- intodrEady^SS version of the doctrine of Hades, and a Platonic, through Origen's restorationism. The extension of a final restoration to all the wicked, and even to Satan, was, however, regarded by the bulk of the Church as an extravagance of Origen. Thus, we are told, prayers for the dead appear in the earliest liturgies, as Basil's, and in the cur- rent of the Fathers, from the " Apostolic constitutions," so called, and the Pseudo Dyonisius, downward. When the priestly conception of the Christian ministry was intruded (which may be traced as early as A. D. 200), the sacrament of the mass began to be regarded as a sacrifice, which is evinced by their giving it to infants ; and soon the idea was borrowed, that it availed for the dead. Thus, says Calvin, in his Insti- tutes, the custom of praying for the dead had prevailed almost universally in the Latin Church for 1300 years before his time. Augustine, even, tolerated it. Aerius, the so-called heretic, seems to have been the only noted disentient in the early ages. But prayers for the dead imply that their state is not yet fixed, nor yet perfectly blessed, and that it may be amended. The fully developed doctrine was embodied in the Romish creed, by the Councils of Florence and Lyons 2nd.

The student may find a very express and full statement of Doctrine Stated Pur- ^^^^ Roman doctrine, in the 25th Session of gatoiy the Comple- the Council of Trent. To understand it, and ment of Penance. ^|^g distinction of the Reat?/s pcencs, and Rea-

tus CulpcB, on which it is founded, its development out of the simple usages of the primitive Church about penitents must be explained. When a Church-member had scandalized the Church, especially if it was by idolatry, he was required, after his repentance, to undergo a strict penance. This was con- sidered as satisfaction made to the wounded credit of the Brotherhood. Out of this simple idea grew the distinction between penitential, and theological, temporal, and spiritual guilt. The latter, they suppose, is expiated by Christ's divine blood. For the former, the believer must make satisfaction himself, partly in the sacrament of penance and self-mortifica- tions, the remainder in purgatory. The two classes of punish- ment are, therefore, complementary to each other : the more of one is paid, the less of the other remains to be demanded. Venial sins incur only the reatwn pcencB ; mortal sins carry both forms of guilt. Baptism, the Church holds, removes all

540 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

previous guilt — original and actual ; so that were the infant to

die immediately after its baptism, it would incur neither hell

nor purgatory. All other believers, including even the highest

clergy, even Popes, except the Christian martyrs, must go to

purgatory, for a time longer or shorter, to pay the reatiim

pcencB of their sins after baptism. The baptism of fire, which

the martyr receives is, in his case, a sufficient purgation, and

substitutes the purgatorial sufferings.

The arguments of Rome on this subject may be found so

T3 „ . , . fully and learnedly stated by Cardinal Bellar-

-bellarmine s Argu- • i ^ ^ ■ i--ii-7j-,

ments. mme, {Controversia vol. n, bk. i, de Ptirga-

torio p. 285, &c.,) that nothing can be

added after him. He ranks his arguments under three heads —

from Scriptures, from the Fathers, from Reason,

From the Apocrypha is quoted 2 Mac. 12th, which states P that Judas Mac. sent to Jerusalem 12,000

and Old Testament. ^ drachmae, to be expended in sacrifices for the dead, and adds the sentiment : " There- fore it is holy and wholesome to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins." The answer is : the book is not canonical ; nor is the rendering clear. The same answer may be made to the citation from Tobit iv, which recommends the giving of a sepulchral feast to the pious poor, in order that they may pray for the souls of the departed. From the Scrip- tures, Malachi iii : 2, 3, is also quoted, and apphed to Christ's second coming instead of His first. At the final day, they say, a purgatorial influence will be very briefly exerted by the final conflagration, on the souls of those then living. There, they claim, the principle of a purgatory is granted. The answer is, that the New Testament proves that this and similar passages relate to Christ's first coming. (John i : 23 ; Luke i : 17; iii : 4, or iii : 16). And the trying fire is the searching and judgment of God's convincing Spirit, then peculiarly poured out. To see how hardly bestead they are for Scriptural proof, you may note how they quote i Sam. xxxi : 13 ; 2 Sam. i : 12 ; iii : 35 ; Gen. 1:25; Ps. Ixvi : 1 2 ; Isa. iv : 4 ; ix : 18; Micah. vii : 8 ; Zech. ix : II. It is only by some preposterous apphcation of the Fathers, or mistranslation of the Vulgate, that these passages seem to have any reference to purgatory.

From the New Testament are quoted the following : Matt.

„ ^ „ , ^ xii : 31, 32, where, it is claimed, there is a Texts From the Gos- i^- • i- i.- ^1 ^ • ' ^ .

pels. plain implication that some sins are forgiven

in the other world. But first, the assertion of a proposition does not prove its converse. Second, if the passage implies that any sins are pardonable after death, it implies that they are such as blasphemy against the Father and the Son. But Rome herself makes these mortal sins. Third, our Saviour's words are simply an amplification of the idea that such sin " hath never forgiveness ;" as in fact He expresses it in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 54I

Mark iii : 12, the parallel passage. Last, the phrase auov ps/Jxir^, never means anything else than either the Christian dispensation as contrasted with the Mosaic or else the time after the judgment.

Bellarmine also cites i. Cor. iii : 10-15, spying, "the foun- dation is Christ, the founders are the apos-

Tr^^°'VV ^°' ^^'^ ties, the good builders are Catholic clergy, Lxpounded. .' » 11.1 1

their successors ; the gold, silver, and prec- ious stones, are true Catholic doctrine ; the ' wood, hay, and stubble,' are erroneous, but not damnably heretical doctrines : and the inference is, that these heedless Catholic teachers shall be punished in purgatory for their careless teaching." But if clergymen need a purgatory, the principle is established. Others reach the same conclusion more directly. Now, the true exposition of this passage, very strangely overlooked by the most of the Protestants, makes the ' gold, silver, and prec- ious stones,' true converts or genuine Christians united to the Church, which Christ has founded ; while the ' wood, hay, and stubble,' are spurious professors. The proof is in the coher- ency of this sense with the whole passage ; in the context, v. 16, and in Is. xxviii : 16 ; i Pet. ii : 4-6. Next, "the day" which shall try every man's work, what sort it is, is evidently the judgment day. Compare i Cor. iv : 3, where man's judgment is, literally, " man's day." But the judgment day is subsequent to all purgatory, according to Rome herself. The fire which is to try each man's work is figurative, the divine judgment and Spirit. Compare Heb. xii : 29. And to suppose that the fire in V. 15 is purgatorial fire implies a change of sense ; for the trial is not by literal fire, as the Romanists make purgatory to be, but figuratively; ouzm:^ d»-.

From Matt, v : 25, 26, it is inferred that the debtor may

pay divine justice the last farthing, and " come

out." This is not implied : if the debt is 10,000 talents, and he has nothing to pay, he will never come out. See Matt, xviii : 24, 25. Matt, v : 22, is also quoted, as implying different degrees of punishment ; but if all are sent together to an eternal hell, no difference can be made. We reply, this does not follow, for all infinites are not equal. Their citations of i Cor. xv : 29, and Phil, ii : 10, need scarcely be argued.

The opinions of the Fathers we easily set aside by denying the Church's infallibility.

Bellarmine's arguments from reason are four. First : Some

sins are venial, and since they do not deserve Venial^si^^"*^ ^°'^ infinite punishment, a just God must punish

them temporally. The answer is, that the Bible knows no venial sins. Some are, undoubtedly, less guilty than others. But God will know how to apportion their just penalties, without a purgatory.

542 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Second : This acute polemic argues, that the satisfaction

. ^ , of Christ does not take off believers all

Argument from ^ ^ , ., , .

Nature of Christ's lorms ot the guut and consequences oi sin:

Satisfaction, and Chris- for God chastises all of them by bodily

tians' Afflictions. ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ j^^^ ^^ affliction. Nor

is it worth while for the Protestants to endeavor to evade this, by saying that these chastisements are merely disciplinary. For they are of the nature of other penal evils ; they are a part of the curse ; they are notoriously the consequences of sins; the paternal love of God would never lead Him to use such means for promoting the glorification of sinless crea- tures. And that they are actually penal is proved by two cases — that of David, 2 Sam. xii : 14, where God thus explains David's bereavement of his child by Bathsheba ; and that of the baptized, elect infant, suffering and dying in " infancy." For there is an heir of redemption ; yet it suffers the curse ; and the Protestant cannot explain it as merely disciplinary, because the infantile sufferer cannot understand, and, therefore, cannot profit by its own pangs. And indeed, suggests Bellarmine, here is seen the folly of Protestants, in dragging those texts into this question, which they say, teach that Christ's atonement is an absolute satisfaction for all guilt, such as Rom. x : 4: viii : I ; Ps. ciii : 12-14; Heb. vii : 25 ; x : 14. For if these texts be taken in the Protestant sense, then they are incompatible with the chastisements and deaths of justified persons, which are such stubborn facts. How does the Protestant reconcile them? Why, he has to resort to that definition of vicarious satisfaction, which all sound Christians advance ; (as, for instance, to solve Socinian objections,) that satisfaction is not a legal tender, but an optional, moral equivalent for the sinner's own punishment. Hence, as the Protestant himself teaches, the offering of even an adequate equivalent by Christ does not compel the Father to release the debtor, the condemned sinner, absolutely ; as in pecuniary debts, the offer of the legal tender compels the creditor to accept it and release his debtor, or else lose his whole claim forever. The Father's sovereign option is still necessary to make the transaction valid ; He might withhold it if He chose. Hence, Protestants themselves infer the extent to which, and the terms on which, the vicarious satisfaction shall avail for the sinner, depend on the actual option which God the P'ather sees fit to exercise. Therefore, it is all folly for Protes- tants to argue, that because Christ gives us a perfect vicarious righteousness, therefore, God cannot exact from the believing sinner any penal debt whatever ; it is not theoretically true ; it is not true in fact. How much of the penal debt God remits, and how much He still requires of the believing sinner, must be a question of revealed testimony purely. And farther : Suppose a true believer, dying before he has gotten his fair share of penance and chastisements. He cannot go to hell ; he

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 543

is justified. Must there not be a purgatory, where his unpaid debt of penitential guilt can be paid ? Else, when his case is compared with that of the aged and ripened saint, who, with fewer venial sins, has paid a larger amount of penances and afflictions, there is flagrant partiality.

In refuting this adroit argument, I would expressly admit

that view of vicarious satisfaction advanced,

e utation. ^^ ^1^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ j would expressly accept

the appeal to the revealed testimony. And now, setting aside the apocrypha, and the Fathers, as of no authority, I plant myself on this fact : that the Scriptures are absolutely silent, as to any penitential guilt remaining after the reahis culpcB is removed, and as to any purgatorial punishment. Search and see. This is the view which decided Luther, against all the prejudices of his education. Next, the chastisements of the justified are represented by God as only discipHnary, and not punitive. Heb. xii : 6-IO. " Whom the Lord loveth" * * * " But He for our profit." Nor can the case of David, or of the dying elect infant, rebut this blessed truth. All that is said by Nathan is, that one reason of God in sending the chas tisement of the infant's death was, that its manner of birth had given the wicked great occasion to blaspheme. -Well, this end of the bereavement is after all, disciplinary, and not vindicatory ! The case of the dying infant, plausible at the first blush, is a complete sophism. Its whole plausibility is in the false dogma of baptismal regeneration. To make Bellarmine's argument hold, he must be able to say that this suffering infant is not only elect, but already justified. This, he supposes, is effected in baptismal regeneration. Now, we know that this is a figment. It is not a baptism previous, which redeems this infant, but the blood and Spirit of Christ applied only when he dies. So that during the time of his infantile sufferings, he is yet unjustified, is still under wrath, and is suffering for his birth-guilt.

Again, I say : let the statement of vicarious satisfaction as Argument from Per- ^ot a legal tender, be accepted. Let us to feet Satisfaction of Be- the law and the testimony, to learn whether lievers at Death. God, in His sovereign acceptance of Christ's

equivalent righteousness, reserved any form of guilt to be exacted of the justified. Let it be a question of fact. Now, I argue, that no cleansing sufferings can be exacted of believers after death, because God says that they are then pure, and have no taint of sin to purge away. See Shorter Catechism, que. 37. If God teaches that " the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness," then, according to the Papist's own showing, there is no room for purgatorial cleansing. This, then, is the cardinal question. i John iii : 2. We are like Christ when we see Him as He is. Eph. v : 27. See also 2 Cor. v : 1-8, and Phil, i : 21-23, compared with Rev. xxi : 27, or Heb. xii : 14. See also Rev. xiv : 13 ; Is. Ivii : i, 2 ; 2 Kings

544 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

xxii : 20. And now, I return, and from this point of view claim all those precious texts which declare the completeness of Christ's justifying righteousness, as applicable. When God, after teaching us this fact of perfect sanctification of the believer at death, adds that there is no condemnation to the man in Christ, (Rom. viii : i), that His blood cleanseth from all sin, (i John i : 7), that "by one offering He hath perfected (them) forever," (Heb. x : 14), that " He will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea, (Micah vii : 19), the testimony is applicable, and conclusive.

Before proceedmg, however, with this affirmative argument,

Romish Argument ^^t US notice Bellarmine's 3d and 4th points, from Popular Consent, One is to argue the principle of a purgatory,

^' as we do the existence of God, from the cou-

seiisiis populortnn. The answer is, that the universal testimony for the existence of a God is given against the leanings of a guilty conscience and self-interest ; and is, therefore, valuable, because disinterested. But the popularity of a purgatory among sinners is no argument in its favour, because the inven- tion is prompted by the leanings of a guilty heart. The Romanist's fourth argument is, that there certainly is a purga- tory, because several Popish Ghosts have come thence, and stated the fact ! This, of course, is unanswerable !

In pursuance of the argument, I cite the case of the peni-

^ , . , tent thief, (Luke xxiii : 43), so well argued

Refutation from , t- ' > j 1 j 1 i.i ^ 1 -c

Bible Instances. ^Y ■*■ urrettm. 1 Only add, that surely, 11

there ever was a justified believer who needed purgatory, this man, just plucked, at\his dying hour, out of the foulest sins, was the one. The Romish evasion is to say. Mar- tyrs are exempt from purgatory. Now, first, the thief was no martyr ; he did not die for the truth ; but died for a robbery. Second, the exemption of martyrs is unreasonable and unscrip- tural. Their dying pangs are often fewer and shorter than of many saints who have died in their beds ; and their devotion less meritorious. Here, also, we may quote the act of Stephen, who, speaking by immediate revelation, commended his soul to Christ in glory. So St. Paul, who, according to the Romish doctrine, had every reason at the time of his speaking to sup- pose himself a candidate for purgatory, evidently believed the opposite ; for he held that being absent from the body was to be present with the Lord.

Next : the whole idea of " satisfaction " to divine justice by temporary sufferings is unscriptural. So, the idea that penal sufferings have in themselves any sanctifying virtue, is equally unreasonable.

Once more : the soul in purgatory being, according to the

The Soul Would Popish theory, still imperfect, would be still

Contract Debt in Pur- sinning ; and thus, new guilt would be accru-

^'^'^°^' ing, while it was paying for the old. It could

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 545

never get out ; purgatory would be merged into an endless hell. To avoid this conclusion, which Bellarmine expressly admits would otherwise follow, the Papists lay it down as a principle, that souls after death can neither merit reward nor penalty. The only show of proof for this is the perversion of such passages of Scriptures as say that, at death, man's pro- bationary state ends ; as, e. g., Eccles. ix : lo ; Jno. ix : 4, &c. But the statement that probation ends at death, is better satis- fied by our theory, that there is no purgatory. Hence, this rea- soning is a vicious circle. The idea that souls after death cease to merit, is, moreover, absurd and unscriptural. Angels can, and did, and do merit while disembodied spirits. Responsi- bility is directly founded on the natural relation of Creator and rational creature ; it cannot end, save by the change of the creature's nature, or of God's. Hence, the passage of the crea- ture under a penal, or rewarding dispensation, has no effect to suspend his responsibility. It is not true, that obligation rests on covenant alone, as Papists and Arminians say ; so that when covenant is broken by sin, obligation is suspended. It rests on God's intrinsic rights and the creature's nature. The opposite view leads to the absurdity of letting the sinner gain by his sin.

The cunning of Rome is illustrated by this dogma. She may well say, " By this craft we have our wealth." It prolongs the hold of priestcraft over the guilty fears and hopes of men, which otherwise must have terminated at death, indefinitely. Men would not pay money to evade a misery which was admit- ted to be inevitable ; the expenditure would appear useless. The cruelty of priestcraft, in thus making traffic of the remorse of immortal souls, and the dearest affections of the bereaved for their departed friends, is as impious as unfeeling.

On the other hand, how blessed is the creed of the Bible touching the believer's death? With the end of that struggle, all our trials end, and our everlasting rest begins. With the grave, and all its horrid adjuncts, the Christian really has no concern ; for when the senseless body is consigned to its dark- ness, the soul, the true Ego, the only being which fears, and hopes, and rejoices and suffers, has already soared away to the bosom of its Redeemer, and the general assembly of the glorified.

35'

SYLLABUS

1. Wherein did Christ's Humiliation consist ? Did it include a descent into HeU ?

Shorter Cat. Qu. 26-28. Turrettin, Loc. xiii, Qu. 9, 16. Calvin, Inst. bk. ii, ch. 16, § 8-13. Knapp, g 92, 96.

2. Wherein consisteth Christ's Exaltation ? What is meant by His Session at His Father's right-hand ?

Turrettin, Loc. xiii, Qu. 19. Dick, Lect. 62. Knapp, § 97, 99. Ridgley, Qu. 51 to 54.

3. How is Christ's Resurrection Essential in His mediatorial Work ?

Calvin, Inst. bk. ii, ch. 16, ^ 13. Jno. xvi. . Dick, Lect. 61. Ridgley, Qu. 52. Prove the Fact.

Turrettin, Loc. xiii, Qu. 17. Bp. Sherlock, " Trial of the Witnesses." W^est on the Resurrection. Home's Introduct. ch. 4, Vol. i. Sect. 2, | 9.

4. What the Grounds, Objects, and Mode of Christ's priestly Intercession ? Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 15. Dick. Lect. 59.

5. How doth Christ execute the office of King ? As God, or as Oeav&pojTroq t Wliat His kingdom ? Wliat the extent of His Powers?

Conf. of Faith, ch. xxv, Bk. of Gov. ch. 2. Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 16. Dick, Lect. 64. Ridgley, Qu. 45. Knapp, ^ 98, 99. 2. What the Duration of Christ's Kingdom ?

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 17. Dick, Lect. 64. Hodge, i Cor. xv : 24-28.

J WHEREIN did Christ's humiliation consist? See Cate- * chism, Qu. 27. That Christ should fulfil the work of a Christ's Humiliation. Redeemer in both estates, was necessary for Did He Descend into the purchase and the application of sal- Hell? Calvm'sView. yation. There is seeming Bible authority for the clause of the Creed, (inserted later than the body,) which says that " He went into hell." See Ps. xvi : 10, as quoted by Peter and Paul. Acts ii and xiii. The Hades into which Christ is there said to have gone, receives four explana- tions. I. The grave. But it was not the grave into which His "soul" went. 2. The limbus patnim, the Popish. They quote, also, i Pet. iii : 19, and explain it of the Old Testament saints; and thus explain Matt, xxvii : 53. But we have shown that there is no Ihnbus patnnn. 3. Some earlier Lutherans understood Ps. xvi : 10 ; i Pet. iii : 19, that Christ went into the hell of the damned, to show them His triumph over death, and seal their fate. Thus it was a part of His exaltation. Both this and the previous notion are contradicted by Luke xxiii : 43. 4. Protestants, by hades of Ps. xvi : 10, now understand simply the invisible or spirit world, to which Christ's soul went while disembodied. Calvin understands the creed to mean, by Christ's descent into hell, the torments of spiritual death, which He suffered in dying, not after. His idea is, that the creed meant simply to asseverate, by the words, " descended into hell," the fact that Christ actually tasted the pangs of spiritual 546

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 547

•death, in addition to bodily, and in this sense endured hell-tor- ments' for sinners, so far as they can be feh without sin. But Calvin expressly says that the whole of that torment was tasted before the Redeemer's soul left the body. For thence it went to rest in the bosom of the Father. He even raises and answers this question : If this is the meaning of the Creed, why is the descent into heh mentioned after the death and burial ; if the thing it means really occurred before ? The answer is unsatis- factory ; but this at least shows that I have not misunderstood Calvin in his peculiar view. And this is all the ground which exists for the charge so often made by persons who professed much more acquaintance with Calvin than they possessed, that he held to Christ's actual descent into the world of damned.

spirits !

For Christ's exaltation, see Cat., Qu. 28 ; Phil, ii : 6-11 ; Is. liii : 10-12 ; Ps. xxii, &c. In what sense

2. Exaltation. ^^^ ^^^ exaltation of a divine Saviour pos- sible ? (a) By removing the veil thrown over His glory by in- carnation, (b) By economical reward to Mediatorial person, for humiliation. See Phil, ii : 10, &c. (c) By exaltation of His human nature. Matt, xvii : 2 ; Rev. i : 12-16. This exalt- ation now, doubtless, takes place, as to Christ's humanity, in a place, called the third heaven, to which He went by literal local motion, from our earth. Sitting at God's right hand means nothing more than the post of honour and power. God has no hand, literally, being immense spirit. The Lutheran argument for ubiquity of Christ's humanity, drawn hence, is foolish ; for in the sense in which the humanity sits at the right hand, that hand is not ubiquitous. It is sophism by conversion of terms. Of this exaltation, the Kingship is the more permanent feature.

Christ's resurrection is every where spoken of in Scrip- ture as a hinging point of the believer's sal-

3. Resurrection of Christ y^tion and hope. See Rom. iv : 25, and i : Proved. Its Importance. ^ . ^ ^ ^ , . t ^ ^r^ Sr^ ■

^ 4 ; Jno. XIV : 19 : I Cor. xv : 14, 17, 20, &c.,

Acts i : 21, 22 ; i Pet. i : 3, &c. The Apostles everywhere put it forth as the prime article of their system, and main point of their testimony. Whence this importance ? Before we answer this question, it may be well to advert to the evidences upon which we are assured, that this event, equally cardinal and wonderful, really occurred. If you are required to show that the fact is authentic, you may prove it.

(a) From Old Testament predictions, such as Ps. xvi : 10. This event is one of the criteria predicted for the Messiah. Then, if you have proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah; you may claim that a resurrection is to be expected for Him.

(b) Christ expressly predicted His own resurrection. Matt. XX : 19, and xxvii : ^l ; John x : 18. If He is not a monstrous impostor, which His lovely character disproves, we must expect to find it true.

548 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

(c) We have the testimony of many witnesses who saw Him after His rising ; of the eleven, of above 400 brethren^ and last of Paul ; witnesses, competent, honest, and credible. They knew Christ by sight ; yet they were at first incredulous. They had everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by bearing false testimony here. On this point the convincing arguments of the Christian writers are familiar to your reading.

(d) The miracles wrought in confirmation of the fact prove it. See Heb. ii : 4. The Apostles, we read, in the act of invo- king God's miraculous aid, appealed to it as proof that their testimony was true. See Acts iii : 16. Now, to suppose that God sanctioned such an appeal, by putting forth His own power then, would make Him an accomplice to the deception. So the spirit- ual effusion of Pentecost, especially, and all the subsequent, are proofs ; for they are fruits of His ascension. See Acts ii : 33 ;

V : 32.

(e) The change of the Sabbath is a perpetual monumental evidence of the resurrection. For 4,000 years it had been observed on the 7th day of the week. It is now universally observed on the 1st day by Christians. Whence the change ? The Church has constantly asserted that it was made to com- memorate the rise of its Redeemer from the dead. Now a public, monumental observance cannot be propagated among, men to commemorate an imaginary event. The introduction of the observance would inevitably challenge remark, and the im- posture would have been instantly exposed. Americans cele- brate the 4th of July. They say, it is to commemorate Ameri- can independence. Had there been no such event as the pub- lishing of the Declaration, July 4th, 1776, the commemoration could not have been successfully introduced to the universal observance of Americans, afterwards. The false reason assign- ed must have provoked exposure. Multitudes of the best in- formed would have said : " But, historically, there has been no- such event to remember!" This must have arrested the pro- posal. Rome has, indeed, introduced memorials of legendary, and pro}3ably imaginary. Saints. But this could only be done,.

(a) through the prevalence of great superstition and ignorance :

(b) many centuries after the pretended events : (c) and only to a partial extent, among local votaries, who make money by the deception.

Let us now resume and answer the questions. What the importance of this cardinal fact, in the doctrine of our redemp- tion ? I. Because it was necessary to clear His memory of the charge of religious imposture, under which He died, and tO' vindicate His character as God's well-approved Son. See Rom. i : 4. 2. Because it evinced the adequacy of His satisfaction for man's guilt. When our Surety comes triumphing out of prison, we know our whole debt is settled. 3. It was neces- sary to demonstrate His power, as the Captain of our salvation,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 549

to conquer our most dreaded enemies. Heb. ii : 14, 15. 4. The resurrection was necessary to enable Christ to be our Sanc- tifier, Advocate, and King. See Jno. xvi : 7 ; Rom. viii : 1 1 ; I Cor. vi : 15 ; i Thess. iv : 14. 5. The resurrection of Christ is the earnest and proof of ours, i Cor. xv : 20, 24 ; Phil, iii : 21, &c.

4. The ground of Christ's intercession is His vicarious

Christ's Intercession, righteousness, which He pleads before the Its Ground, &c. V^ien Father. Is. liii : 12. The mode of His in- DoesitEnd? tercession is by petition; e. g., Jno. xvii.

Some have supposed that this suppliant attitude implies an infe- riority incompatible with the proper divinity of the Son. To mediate does imply a certain economical inferiority of atti- tude ; but no more. Some find, in Jno. xvii : 24, " Father, I will," &c., evidence of a more authoritative intervention. It is overstraining the verb, &t)M. But compare Jno. v : 6, et passim. Yet it is certain that Christ's petitions have a more authoritative basis than ours, being urged on the ground of His covenant and perfect purchase, i Jno. ii : i. A more plausible diffi- culty is this : " If all power is given into Christ's hands, (Matt, xxviii : 18 ; Eph, i : 22 ; Col. ii : 9, 10,) why need He inter- cede at all? Why not do, of Himself, without interceding, all that His people need ?" The answer is, that Christ is a royal Priest, (Zech. vi : 13,) not Aaronic, but Melchisedekan : and His intercession is rather a perpetual holding up of His own right- eousness on behalf of His people, by a perpetual pleading, in order that He may, on that ground, have this viceroyal power of succouring all their wants. And as a royal Priest, He holds up His righteousness to the Father, as a plea for admitting each one of the elect into that body, His kingdom, to which the Father has authorized Him to dispense His fulness.

The objects of Christ's intercession are the elect particu-

Its Objects. \^r\y. See Jno. xvii : 9. Also, His official

intercession is always prevalent ; if He prayed for all, all would be saved : but all are not saved. Hence, His prayer for the pardon of His murderers, Luke xxiii : 34, must be explained, as being limited by its terms to those of His persecutors who sinned in ignorance. And we conclude that every one of these was among the " great com- pany of the priests, Acts vi : 7, who became " obedient to the faith." There is an alternative solution, which is less satisfac- tory : That this prayer was not Messianic and officially Media- torial ; but only the expression of Christian meekness by our pattern, the man Jesus. This attempt to discriminate between the agency of the divine and human wills in Christ, where the act is ethical and spiritual, is perilous.

He must have also interceded officially for the Old Testa- ment saints, for three reasons. The theophanies are believed to have been interventions of the Son. This implies that He

550 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

had already sought and obtained leave to bless His people. 2d. If they had no intercessor, how could a holy and righteous God give His favour to sinners ? 3d. We have a case : Zech. iii : 1-6. But while Christ's mediation is limited to the elect, there is a sense in which He intervenes for the whole race. Doubtless, it is His work for man, which prevented the doom from following the fall, as promptly as Satan's, and which pro- cures for the world all the instances of God's long-suffering.

The duration of Christ's intercession seems different to dif- T, T^ ,. ferent minds. Some suppose that He will

Its iJuration. i , r 11 tt- 1 i- -n

plead lorever ; and that His pleadmg will secure an everlasting suspension of wrath, and bestowal of ever- renewed graces and gifts. They quote Heb. vii : 25. Others suppose that this is only relatively endless, compared with the brief ministry of an Aaronic priest ; and that having thor- oughly reconciled the whole Church to God, and re-instated them in holiness as v/ell as favour, no farther need of His inter- cession will exist ; but God can dispense His blessings unasked by an advocate, as on the holy angels. I lean to the former part. Add : that His priesthood is spoken of as everlasting. Ps. ex; Heb. vii : 3, 24. His sacrifice is ended, "once for all." If His intercession is not eternal, in what sense does His priest- hood continue? Further: He seems stih to be the Medium, after the full glorification of the church, through which they receive the blessings of redemption. Rev. vii : 17, &c. And this is much the most consistent and pleasing view of the rela- tion of the glorified Church to God.

See Cat. question 26. As eternal Son, the 2d person

^, • p IT- A doubtless shares forever, the natural and infi-

Cnnst s Kingdom. . , . . _ , V- ,, , -r-> > •

nite dominion 01 the Godhead. But this

Mediatorial kingdom is conferred and economical, exercised not merely in His divine nature, but by Him as Ssdv&iico-oz The Person receives this exaltation. The extent of His king-" dom is universal. See texts above, and Phil, ii : 10, 11. The Church is His immediate domain : its members are His citi- zens ; and for their benefit His powers are all wielded. But His power extends over all the human race, the angelic ranks, good and bad, and the powers of nature. This exaltation, therefore, shows our Saviour as clearly divine, for no finite wis- dom or powers are at all adequate to its task. The nature of this benign kingdom is very clearly set forth in Ps. ii, xlv, ex, and Ixxii ; in Is. ix, &c., &c., and in the passages above quoted. The phrase, " Kingdom of God," of " Heaven," &c., is used in the New Testament in somewhat varying senses ; but they all signify the different aspects of that one spiritual reign, called " the kingdom of Christ." (a) True religion, or the reign of Christ in the heart. Luke xii : 31 ; xvii : 21 ; Mark x : 15 ; iv : 26. (b) The visible Church under the new dispensation. Mat. xiii : 40, 41 ; iv : 17; Mark i: 15. (c) The perfected

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 55 1

Church in glory. Luke xiii : 29 ; 2 Pet. i : ii. It is a purely- spiritual kingdom, as is proved by our Saviour's words, (Jno. xviii : 36), by the nature of its objects ; the redemption of souls ; by the nature of its agencies, viz., truth and mercy and holiness, (see Ps. xlv : 3, 4), by the conduct of Christ and His Apostles while on earth, in paying tribute, living subordinate to magistrates, &c. This respects its terrestrial modes of admin- istration : for as to its secret and superhuman modes, they are properly almighty, and both physical and spiritual.

Orthodox divines are not agreed as to the duration of this 6. Duration of kingdom. If we would fix the date of its Christ's Kingdom. Be- beginning, we must make it, in some respects, ginning. co-eval with Christ's intercession — i. e., with

the protevangelium proclaimed to man. For it is plain, that saints before the incarnation had all the same necessities for a divine King to conquer, protect, and rule them, which we expe- rience now ; and lay under the same obstacles as to receiving these blessings from a holy God directly, who was bound by His justice and truth to punish and destroy sinners. Again ; we have seen instances, the various theophanies, in which the Son, under the person of the Angel of the Covenant, busied Himself for the protection of His people. Again, Ps. ii speaks of Christ's kingdom, not only as promised, but as having an institution co-eval with the declaration to man of His Sonship. See best interpretation of v. 7. But yet the God-man was only inducted into His peculiar and delegated viceroyalty, after, and as a reward of. His sufferings. See Phil. ii. And the "king- dom of God " is often spoken of at the time of Christ's coming, as being then at hand, or as a thing then coming. We must, therefore, conclude, that while the Son was permitted to inter- cede aifd rule before His incarnation, on the ground of His work to be rendered to the Father, His kingdom received a still more explicit establishment after His resurrection.

When we come to consider the other terminus, we are met

T, . ^. , by a still more serious difference of opinion.

1 ermination ! _■' ■ i --r^ • 11,1

Some, with iurrettm, suppose that the dele- gated mediatorial kingdom over the Church will undergo a change in the mode of its administration at the final consum- mation, its relation to its enemies, as well as the nature of its own wants, being greatly modified ; but that in other respects it will continue : in that the Osdvd-fno-o^ will be the direct medium for the saints' guidance and government still ; and this forever and ever. The arguments are, that perpetual and everlasting duration are promised to it; e.g., Ps. Ixxii : 17; Is. ix : 7 ; Dan. vii : 14; Dan. ii : 44. Second. His people will need pro- tection and guidance, just as they will need teaching and inter- cession, forever. For their glorification will not render them naturally impeccable or infallible. Yea, as we have seen, when speaking of Socinianism, they must have this ruling and teach-

552 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ing, or some day in futurity they will go astray again. But it seems far more natural to suppose that these blessings will still be given through Christ their Head, to whom they were spiri- tually united at their conversion. The personal union of the divine and human will continue. But for what purpose, if the mediatorial connection is terminated ? INIoreover, the Revela- tion seems to decide the question, showing us the Lamb, (ch. v : 6), receiving the homage of the glorified Church, (ch. vii : 17), leading and feeding it still, and (ch. xxi : 22, 23), acting, after the final consummation, as the light of heaven. Third. In Rev. xix : 7, 8, the marriage of the Church to the Lamb is spoken of as then consummated, amidst the glories of the final consummation. All that was previous was but the wooing, as it were ; and it seems very unnatural to conceive of the pecu- liar connexion as terminating with the marriage. Then it only begins properly.

Others, as Dick, seem to attach so much importance and

force to I Cor. xv : 24-28, as to suppose that plained '^' ^^' ^"^ it necessitates another supposition; that

Christ having reinstated the Church in holi- ness and the favour of God, and subdued all its enemies, there will no longer be any necessity for the peculiar mediatorial plan ; but God will rule directly over saints as over the rest of His holy universe before man fell ; and Christ will have no other kingdom than that which He naturally holds as of the Godhead. In answer to Turrettin's first argument, they would say that the everlasting duration promised to Christ's kingdom, is only relative to the evanescent generations of men : and means no more than that it shall outlast all generations of earth. This, they say, is even indicated in the Ps. Ixxii ; 17, where the " forever" is defined to mean as long as the Sun. But 'Uhe sun shall be turned into darkness before the great and terrible day of the Lord." As to the second argument, it is admitted that the saints in heaven will always need teaching and ruling ; but it is supposed that they being thoroughly justified and sancti- fied, God may bestow these graces on them directly, as the elect angels, without a mediatorial intervention. These views appear plausible ; but they come short of a full clearing up of the subject. They leave unbroken the force of the passages cited from Revelation. The whole tenour of the Scripture seems to imply that the peculiar relationship, not only of grati- tude and affection, but also of spiritual union, formed between Christ and His people, is to be everlasting. He is their ''alpha and their omega!' His life is the spring and warrant of their life. It is their union to Him which ensures the resurrection of their bodies, and the eternal life of both body and spirit. See Jno. xiv : 19. The change made in the method of God's gov- erning the universe, by means of the incarnation, will continue, in some respects to all eternity, as a standing monument of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 553

Jesus Christ's victory and grace. Nor does the passage from I Cor. XV : 24, seem insuperable. That a striking change will then take place in the method of the mediatorial kingdom, cannot be doubted. Perhaps it will consist largely in this, that Christ's power over the universe (external to His body, the Church), will be returned to the Godhead. But the restoration of the Church to the Father, as an accomplished enterprise, is to be received, not as implying a severance of Christ's headship, but as a surrendering of Himself along with it, body and head, as an aggregate. Let i Cor. iii : 23, be compared. It need not follow, that, because the dominion of the God-man over wicked men and angels and inanimate nature, is restored to the Godhead, so that it may again be "all in all," Christ's redeeming headship to His people must be severed. The Viceroy may bring back the province once in insurrection, under His Father's authority, so that it shall be paramount and universal ; and yet, the Son's most appropriate reward may be, that He shall continue the immedi- ate Ruler and Benefactor of the restored subjects. This, on the whole, seems to be the Bible teaching. It is at once most con- soling to believers and most honorable to Christ.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Mark i: 15

SYLLABUS

1. How are we made partakers of the Redemption purchased by Christ? See. Conf. of Faith, ch. 9, Cat. Qu. 29.

2. Whence the Necessity of a Call to man ? Dick, Lect . 65. Hill, bk. v, ch. i.

3. How many calls does God give to men ? And what is the difference between Common and Effectual Calling ?

Shorter Cat. Qu. 31. Larger Cat. Qu. 68. Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. i, 4. Hill, bk. V, ch. i. Ridgley, Qu. 67. Knapp. § 129.

4. What then can be God's true Design in the " Common Call " of non-elect Men ; and how may His Sincerity therein be cleared ?

Turrettin,, Loc. xv, Qu. 2. Howe's Works, " Reconcilableness of God's prescience, &c., with the Wisdom and Sincerity of His Counsels." Works of Andrew Fuller. Gospel Worthy of all acceptation, pt. iii. Arminian and Socinian Polemics. Passim. Hodge's Theol. pt. iii, ch. 14.

4( VVT'E are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by I. Application of Christ's Holy Ghost." We now come to the Redemption by Holy great branch of Theology — The Application ^^°^*- of Redemption — in which the kingdom

founded by Jesus Christ's humiliation is set up and carried on. In this work. His priestly office is only exercised in heaven, by His intercession. It is His prophetic and kingly which He exercises on earth. And the person of the Trinity now

554 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

brought into discussion is the Holy Ghost, which proceedetb from the Father through the Son. As the doctrines of Creation, Providence, the Law, chiefly concerned the Father; that of atonement and priesthood chiefly concerned the Son ; so this brings into view chiefly the Holy Ghost. This would, there- fore, be the most natural place to bring into view the doctrine of the Spirit's personality, nature, and agency ; but as you have already attended to these, I proceed.

The great necessity for the effectual calling of man is in

^. ^, . his original sin. Were he not by nature

2. Sin Necessitates j , j i • j- •■• i n • i- t

the Call. depraved, and his disposition wholly inclined

to ungodliness, the mere mention of a plan, by which deliverance from guilt and unholiness was assured, would be enough ; all would flock to embrace it. But such is man's depravity, that a redemption must not only be provided, but he must be effectually persuaded to embrace it. Now since our effectual calling is the remedy for our original sin ; as is our conception of the disease, such will be our conception of the remedy. Hence, in fact, all men's theology is determind here- upon, by their views of original sin. We, who believe the unconverted will to be certainly determined to ungodliness, by ungodly dispositions, therefore believe in an effectual and super- natural call. Jno. iii : 5 and 6.

Calvinists admit only two kinds of call from the gospel to

man — the common and the effectual. They mon or^Effectuai. °™' deny that there is any natural call uttered by

the voice of nature and Natural Theology; for the simple reason that whatever information it might give of the being and government of God, of His righteousness, and of His punishments for sin, it holds out no certain warrant that He will be merciful to sinners, nor of the terms whereon He can be so. Where there is no revealed gospel, there is no gospel call. And this is only to say, that Natural Theology is insufficient to salvation.

The common call consists of the preached word, addressed to men's ears and souls, together with (in most, at least), the common convincing operations of the Holy Ghost. This call is made generally to the whole human race in Scripture, and specifically to each adult to whom the gospel comes. The effectual call, we hold, consists of these elements, and also of a work of the Holy Ghost, " whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills. He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel." Arminians, indeed, assert that the call is one and the same, so far as God's dispensation towards men is concerned, to all under the gospel ; and that it only differs by its results in dif- ferent cases, which difference is made only by man's free will. This we shall more fully disprove when we come to show the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 555

nature of regeneration ; but it may now be disproved briefly by these thoughts : (a). That a difference is asserted between the nature of God's calls; in Scripture, Matt, xx : 16; Jno. vi : 44, 45. (b). That the effectual calling is a result of election; but the event proves that all are not elect. See Rom. viii : 28 ; xi : 29; viii : 30; Acts xiii : 48. (c). If the call only differed in the answer made to it by man's free will : i Cor. iv : 7, would not remain true ; nor Rom. ix : 16.

God's design in the common call of the unconverted may

4. Designs of God be Said to be threefold. First, it is His in Common Call. To appointed and proper means for saving from Gather Elect. among them, the elect. And He either must

have adopted this generality in the outward call; or else He must have adopted one of two expedients. He must have actually saved all, or He must have separated the non-elect wholly from the participation of the common call. Had He adopted the latter plan, surely those who now complain of partiality would then have complained far more loudly. Had He adopted the former, where would have been His manifesta- tion of His sovereignty ; and where that evidence of regular customary connection between means and ends, conduct and destiny, on which He has seen fit to found His government ? God's second design in making the common call universal,

^ ^ ^,. „ was the exercise of the general holiness, good-

nevolence. "^^^' ^^^ compassion of His nature, (which

generally regard all His creatures), in dis- suading all from sin and self-destruction. God's holiness, which is universally opposed to sin, makes it proper that He shall dissuade from sin, every where, and in all sinners. God's mercy and goodness, being made possible towards the human race by their being under a gospel dispensation, make it proper that He shall dissuade all from self-destruction. And this benev- olence not only offers a benefit to sinners generally, but actually confers one — i. e., a temporary enjoyment of a dispensation of mercy, and a suspension of wrath, with all the accompanying mercies, and the offer itself of salvation. This offer is itself a benefit: only man's perverseness turns it into a curse. Blessed be God, His word assures us that this common call is an expres- sion of sincere benevolence towards all sinners, elect and non- elect, (a compasssion whose efficient outgoing is, however, con- ditioned, as to all, on faith and penitence in them). Ezek. xxxiii : 1 1 ; Ps. Ixxxi : 1 3 ; i Tim. ii : 4.

God's third design in making the common call universal is,

^ ^, ^^. ,^ that when men ruin themselves, as He fore- 1 o Clear Hunself. , i i j t t • i i • ^

saw they would, His holmess, goodness, com- passion and truth may be entirely cleared, in their fate, before heaven and earth. It was a part of His eternal plan, to mag- nify His own goodness, by offering to human sinners a provision for salvation so complete, as to remove every obstacle arising;

■556 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

out of His justice and law ; so that in their final damnation, all the universe may see how lovely God is ; and how desperate an evil sin is. And this is properly God's highest end.

It has been often charged that, if God makes an internal dif-

^ ference in sinners' hearts, between the common

Insincere. " ^^^^ '^"^ ^^^^ effectual. His wisdom, or His

sincerity, in extending that common call to all, is tarnished.

In defending God's sincerity and wisdom in this matter, let us make this preliminary remark : That we have discarded the Thomist proposition, which asserts God's efficient prcBciirsjis in the sinful acts of men. The student may recall our grounds, in the twenty-fifth Lecture, for disencumbering God's provi- dence of that dogma. Hence, we have not to account here for any prcecurstis of God's, in those unbelieving acts of the sinner under the gospel, by which he resists its gracious invitations and commands. All we have to account for is God's pres- cience and permission of the unbelief and disobedience. So that the problem we have to discuss is exactly this. Is God both wise and sincere, in invititing and commanding to gospel duty, such sinners as He foresees will neglect it ; while His own purpose is distinctly formed, not to put forth His omnipotent Spirit, to cause them to submit ? That He is wise in doing so, follows without difficuty, from the positions already laid down assigning the several consistent ends God has in view in His dealings with unbelievers. If that part of these ends, which does not include their own redemption is uise, then the provi- dence is wise.

In reply we assert, First: The Scriptures exphcitly direct

the common call to be extended to all ; e. g.,

Mark xvi 115. They assert that God does efficaciously persuade some, and not others, to embrace it : Rom. ix : 16 ; xi : 7. And they also say that God is both wise and sincere m His offers and dealings, Ezek. xxxiii : 1 1 ; Luke xix : 42 ; 2 Tim. ii : 19. Now, in any other science than the- ology, when facts are ascertained on valid evidence, they are all admitted, whether they can be reconciled or not. I remark farther : that to deny the doctrine of effectual calling does not much relieve the subject ; for God's prescience of the actual results of His universal call, involve very much the same diffi- culties as to His wisdom and sincerity.

Second : The objector says that God cannot have done the

thing Calvinists represent Him as doing, VerjST'^''^''^*^ becauseincompatible with His sincerity. But

what if we find Him saying that He does this very thing ? This is precisely the case. In His Scriptures He represents Himself as giving unquestionable admonitions and invitations to men whom, He expressly declares at the time, He intends to permit to destroy themselves. Compare, for in-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 55/

Stance, Exod. v : i, with vii : 3, 4. In the one text God says to Pharaoh : "Let my people go," while in the other, He informs Moses : " He will not hearken, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt." In Isaiah v : 9, Jehovah commissions Isaiah to preach to Judea : and the tenour of his preaching may be seen in Chap, i : 18 ; which is a gracious offer of cleansing. But in Ch. vi : II, Isaiah is informed that his preaching is destmed to harden his countrymen to their almost universal destruction. Ezek. iii : 7, II, presents the very same case. One is presented in Matt, xxiii : 33-35, with 'i,'j, which is, if possible, still stronger. These cases end the debate, so far as the question of fact goes. My point is, that God here avows the doing of the very thing the Arminians say He must not do. This is a perfect proof, at least, that their difficulty has not arisen from any Calvinistic misstatement of God's plan. We might then, dismiss the debate, and leave them to settle their controversy with God, as best they may.

Third : The course of God's providence in natural things,

is liable to the same difficulty. He spares

Providence Involves gi^ners. " He sends His rain on the just and

the Same Question. . 1 tt- • 1

unjust ; and causeth His sun to rise on the

good and evil." See Acts xiv : 17. Now Peter (2 Epist. iii -.15) tells us that the "long suffering of our God is salvation." If His admitting sinners to the gospel call, whom He yet foresees to be bent on their own destruction, is insincere ; and the reality qf His benefit therein is doubted, because He never effi- caciously purposed to make them repent, His providential good- ness also is no true goodness. But what sinner believes this ? We have here every feature, in which, Arminians say, their diffi- culty inheres. These earthly blessings are overtures of mercy, and are intended as such. God foresees their neglect, and the continued impenitence of the recipients. Physically, He is able to add to these suasives the otlier means, and the efficacious grace, which would certainly bring the recipients to repentance. But He does not see fit to add them.

In the fourth place, we find the explanation of the common God's Infinite Good- Call, in the views expounded in the remarks ness Regulated by Wis- upon the design of the sacrifice of Christ. ^°"''- The student was there advertised, that we

should find another apphcation for those important ideas. That subject, and the one now in hand, are obviously cognate : the purpose of God in Christ's sacrifice, and in His offer of its bene- fits, must be guided by the same attributes of wisdom, benevo- lence and righteousness. We there saw, that the executive volition which is wise and good, is prompted in God, (as in a lower manner in any righteous creature,) by comprehensive deliberation ; and is not the result of an insulated principle, but of all the right principles of the Agent's nature harmonized under His best wisdom. We saw how a good man may have

558 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sympathy with a calamity, which he may yet, for wise reasons, freely determine not to relieve. And we raised the question : Since he really has that sympathy, why may he not give candid expression to it in other forms than acts of rescue ? Thus, the good and consistent human magistrate makes overtures of mercy to a criminal on given terms : and yet he is well aware that the criminal's malice and contumacy are such, that the terms will be refused ; and he is equally fixed in his mind not to degrade the majesty of the law, by pardoning on any lower terms. No one charges this ruler with insincerity or folly. Why may not our God do the parallel thing ? We have seen how the extremists, Arminian and ultra-Calvinist, meet in a common ground of cavil : that the difference is ; God is able to renew the criminal's heart, so as to ensure his complying with the requisite terms : the human magistrate is not. I reply, that while God has the d'jvamz, the spiritual might, adequate to renew Satan or Judas, He has not the sanction of His own comprehensive wisdom for doing it. I ask with emphasis : May not Grod see, amidst the multifarious relations of His vast king- dom, many a valid reason which we have not surmised, for deter- mining that it is not best for Him to do a certain act, to which He feels His power competent ? To deny this is insane arro- gance. The Calvinist need not fear, lest the Arminian here tri- umph in representing God's desires as crossed by the invinci- bility of the creature's perverse free will. My view represents His desires and actions as regulated only by His own perfec- tions : but by all His perfections harmoniously combined. It may perhaps be objected farther, that such a picture of the co-action of God's active principles, and of the rise of His voli- tions, cannot be correct ; because it would represent His pur- poses as emerging out of a state of internal struggle, during which God would be drawn different ways by competing motives, like a poor mortal. Such a picture, they exclaim, is unworthy both of the majesty and blessedness, and the immu- tability of God. The sufficient answer is contained in the remark already made in the previous lecture : That God's active principles are not passions. They are principles of action ; but they exist in Him in their unchangeable vigour, without agi- tation, and without passionate access or recess. Hence their co-action in the deliberations of the infinite Mind are without struggle. That this may be so, may be illustrated in some small degree, even to our feeble apprehension. We have adduced the example of the great Washington, contemplating the fate of Andre with profound compassion, and yet with a firm and wise determination to give justice its awful dues. This implied of course, some struggle in Washington's heart. But it is equally obvious, that had it been the lower and feeble nature of a Gates or a Schuyler, (both also sincere and honest patriots) which was called to this solemn task, he would have performed

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 559

it at the cost of much greater disturbance to his equanimity. Why would this have occurred ? Not because their natures were, really, more compassionate than Washington's : but because his, while capable of a more profound compassion than theirs, was cast in a grander mould, and regulated by a higher virtue and wisdom. It is strength which gives equanimity. Take this instance, which is infinitesimally humble, beside God's majesty : and it will assist us to apprehend how His infinite wis- dom may regulate the several infinite activities of His nature, absolutely without a struggle. And let the student bear in mind, that my attempt is not to bring dt)wn the actions of the divine Spirit to man's comprehension : they are ineffable : but to prevent other men from cramping, within the trammels of their human logic, the incomprehensible, but blessed, workings ■of infinite goodness.

Fifth : When we assert this sincere compassion of God in His common calls to the non-elect, we do CondhionTd.'^''^^'^^''''^' not attribute to Him anything futile, or in- sincere ; because, in the expressions of this compassion. He always makes an implied or expressed condi- tion : that they shall turn. He does not say anywhere, that He has any desire to see any one saved while continuing a rebel. Nor does He say anywhere, that it is His unconditioned purpose to compel all to turn. But He says. He would like to see all saved provided they all turned. So that His will in the uni- versal call is not out of harmony with His prescience. And last : God's invitations and warnings to those who. He foresees, will reject them, are the necessary expressions of His perfec- tions. The circumstance that a given sin is foreseen, does not rob it of its moral character; and hence should constitute no reason why a righteous God shall forbear to prohibit and warn against it. That God shall yet permit creatures to commit this sin against His invitations, is therefore just the old question about the permission of evil. Not a new one.

SYLLABUS

5. Who is the Agent; and what the customary Instrument in Effectual CaUing? Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 4, (especially § 23, &c.) Hill, bk. v, ch. i. Dick, Lect. 65. Knapp, g 130, 131.

6. Prove, against Socinians and semi- Pelagians, that in the Effectual Call, regen- eration is not merely by moral Suasion of truth and inducement ; but by the Super- natural Power of the Holy Ghost.

Turrettin, Loc. xiv, Qu. 4, (especially § 28 to end), and Qu. 6. Hodge's TheoL, pt. iii, ch. 14. Hill, bk. v, ch. i, and bk. iv, ch. 8. Dick, Lect. 65. Ridgley, Qu. 67, 68, So. Presb. Rev. Art. i, of July and Oct. 1877. Knapp, I 132, 133. Aristotle, Nichomachian Eihics, bk. ii, ^ i. Watson's Theo. Inst. ch. 24. Dr. Jas. Woods, "OldandNew Theo."

7. Does the Holy Ghost work Regeneration immediately, or only mediately through the Word ?

Turrettin, as above. Alexander's Religious Experience, Letters 5-6. Dick, Lect 66. Review of Hodge So. Presb. Rev., April, 1877. Chaufepie. Diet. Hist, et Crit, Art. Pajon.

npHE Scriptures always speak of the Holy Ghost as the effi- cacious Agent of effectual calling. " Except a man be

born of water and of the Spirit." Jno. iii : J„,o?Re^"„lSr; 5- " It is the Spirit that quickeneth." vi : 63.

See, also, 2 Cor. iii : 17 ; Eph. iv : 30. But this proposition will be supported by the whole subsequent argument. It is also very important that we assert, against Mystics and Fanatics, the counterpart truth : that His custo- mary instrument (in all cases except the redemption of infants and idiots) is the Word. If we allow any other standard or instrumentality of regeneration than the Word, there will be no barrier to the confounding of every crude impulse of nature and Satan, with those of the Holy Ghost. The work of grace is the work of the divine Spirit. The Word is also His ; and He always works His works in accordance with, and through His word, because He is a wise and unchangeable Agent. Such is the uniform teaching of Scripture, confirmed by expe- rience. Christians are "born again, not of the corruptible seed : but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." i Pet i : 23. The Holy Ghost renovates the mental vision ; the word of God alone furnishes the lumin- ous medium through which the renovated vision sees. Here is the only safe middle ground between Rationalism on the one hand, and Fanaticism on the other. To give up the first truth is to surrender the whole doctrines of grace. To forsake the second is to open the floodgates to every wild delusion.

There are two grades of Pelagian view, as to the nature

6. Pelagian and and agency of regeneration. Both regard it

semi-Pelagian View of as only a change of purpose in the sinner s

Regeneration. ^^^^ . ^heieas Calvinism regards it as a rev-

560

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 561

olution of the moral dispositions which determine the purpose of the mind ; accompanied with an enhghtening of the under- standing in spiritual things. The ancient, thorough Pelagian taught a regeneration produced, in the baldest sense, by mere moral suasion — i. e., by the mere force of moral inducements, operating according to the laws of mind. In his mouth, con- verting grace meant nothing more than God's goodness in revealing the moral inducements of the Scriptures ; in endow- ing man with reason and conscience, and in providentially bringing those revealed encouragements into contact with his sane understanding. See Histories of Doctrines. But .the New England Pelagian attributes to the Holy Ghost some indi- rect agency in presenting moral truths with increased energy to the soul. Still, he denies a proper supernatural agency therein ; teaches that the office of the Holy Ghost is only suasive through the truth, and not renovating ; and makes His work the same generically, only vastly stronger in degree, with that of the minister who holds forth the gospel to his fellow-men. It was said, for instance, that Dr. Duffield said : " The only reason I cannot convert a sinner with gospel truth, like the Holy Ghost, is that I am not as eloquent as He is." !*

Now, if we disprove this higher theory, the lower is of course disproved along with it. But we erly Definedi^"^ ^°^" prove that regeneration is not a mere change of the human purpose, occurring in view of motive ; but a supernatural renovation of the dispositions which determine the moral purpose, and of the understanding in the apprehension of moral and spiritual truth ; the whole resulting in a permanent and fundamental conversion in the actings of the whole man as to sin and holiness — the flesh and God. To such a change the human will is utterly inadequate and irrele- vant ; because the change goes back of the will. It is therefore a divine and almighty work of the Father and Son through the Holy Ghost, as Their Agent. And this conception of regene- ration is in strict conformity with that view of the nature of the will, which we saw a correct psychology dictate. It distin- guishes properly between motive and inducement, the former being subjective, the latter objective ; the former being the efficient, the latter only the occasion, of rational volitions. So,, our view recognizes the practical truth, that the subjective dis-

*You will, some of you, recall the queer statement of Woods, in his "Old and New Theology," of the geometrical illustration of conversion, given by a famous theologian of the semi-Pelagian school. The cross is the centre of attraction. The sinner is moving around it in a semi-circle, during the process of conversion, under the suasive influence of gospel truth. This finds him, at first, proceeding along the downward limb of the curve, directly towards hell. But the inducement deflects the sinner more and more, until at that point where the first quadrant ends, the down- ward motion ceases, and an upward tendency is about to begin. This point marks the stage of regeneration. As gospel inducement still continues to draw, the sinner pursues more and more of an upward course. This quadrant represents the progress of sanctification, at the end of which, the sinner flies off at a tangent to heaven I

36*

5^2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

position is decisive of all rational volitions — i. e., that the free agent chooses according to his moral nature, because his own moral nature decides how he shall view inducements. And we also concur with that practical view, which regards subjective character as a permanent and uniform cause, communicating regularly its own quality to the series of moral volition. This character is, in the sinner, carnal. To make the conduct spiri- tual, the character must be renewed.

(a) Our view is probably proved by the fact that, while Proved. 1st. By Man's 1^1^^ shows SO much efficiency in all his

Failures in Moral Rev- physical exploits, especially where combined olutions. • Til-' 1 .

power is applied, his moral enterprises are so

feeble and futile. He can bridge mighty floods, navigate the trackless seas, school the elements, renovate the surface of the globe ; but how little can he do to ameliorate moral evils by all his plans ! Where are all his reformed drunkards, savages civ- ilized, races elevated, without divine grace? If his external works of moral renovation are so scanty, we may expect his internal to be so.

Every instance of the permanent change of a hardened sinner to godliness, bears, to the experienced eye, the appear- ance of a power above man's ; because we see so few men make otherwise a radical change of habits and principles, after these are fully formed. The wise observer of the world will tell you that few men, except under this peculiar power of Christianity, change their course after they pass the age of thirty years. Those who are indolent then, do not become systematically industrious. Those who are then intemperate, rarely become sober. The radically dishonest never become trustworthy. It is also happily true, that good principles and habits then well established, usually prove permanent to the end of life. But, as it is easier for feeble man to degen- erate than to improve, the few instances in which this rule does not hold, are cases of changes from the better to the worse. When, therefore, I see, under the gospel, a permanent change of a hardened sinner for the better, my experience inclines me to believe that he has felt some power above that of mere nature.

(b) I argue that the new birth is the exceeding greatness and. By Different Ef- o^ God's power, because of the different

fects of Truth in Same effects which accompany the preaching of " ^^^ ^' the gospel to different men, and to the same

men at different times. Were the power only the natural influ- ence of the truth, these diverse effects could not be explained consistently with the maxim that " like causes produce like effects." The same gospel-inducements are offered to a con- gregation of sinners, and " some believe the things which are spoken and some believe not." It is not always the most docile, amiable, or serious mind that yields ; such unbelievers

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 563

often remain callous to its appeals, while some ignorant, stub- born and hardened sinner is subdued. How is this ? If the whole influence were in the truths preached, should not the effects show some- regular relation to the cause ? Should not the truth prevail where the natural obstacles are least, if it pre- vailed at all ? Why do we see cases in which it fails before the weaker, and triumphs over the stronger resistance? It is because, in one case, " the exceeding greatness of God's power " is behind that truth, and in the other case, is absent.

But if you deny the sovereign agency of the Holy Ghost in the new birth, you have a more impracticable case to explain. It is the case of him who had resisted this gospel for twenty, thirty, or fifty years, and has yet been subdued by it at last. If the truth had natural power within itself to persuade this soul, why did it not effect it at first? If it lacked that power, how does it come to effect the work at last, after so many failures ? This mystery is enhanced by two great facts. The one is, that the futile presentation of this gospel-truth for so many years must, in accordance with the well-known law of habit, have blunted the sensibilities of the soul, and rendered the story of redemption trite and stale. If you know anything of human nature, you cannot but admit this result. Repetition must make any neglected story dull. That which at first some- what excited the attention and sensibilities, urged so often in vain, must become as

" Irksome as a twice told tale, Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man."

Familiarity and inattention must blunt the feelings toward such a story. The man who first approaches Niagara has his whole ear filled with that mighty, sullen roar of the waters, which shakes the very ground beneath his feet. The dwellers at the spot are so habituated to it by use, that they forget to hear it at all ! The ingenuous boy almost shudders at the first sight of blood, though it be only that of the bird he has brought down in his sport. See that person, when hardened by frequent scenes of carnage and death into the rugged soldier, insensible to the fall of the comrade by his side, and planting his foot with a jest upon human corpses, as he mounts to the " imminent, deadly breach."

The other fact that you must take into the account is, that while the sinner is growing more callous to sacred truth by its neglect, every active principle of ungodliness within him must be growing by its indulgence. Is any one ignorant of this law, that a propensity indulged is thereby strengthened ? Need I bring instances to prove or illustrate it? How else does any man grow from bad to worse ; how does the temper- ate drinker grow into a drunkard, the card-player into a gam- bler, save by the force of this law? It must be then, that while the sinner is neglecting the gospel, at the bidding of

564 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ungodliness, the love of the world, avarice, sensual lusts, self- will, pride, ambition, false shame, with every evil outward habit are growing into giant strength.

This, then, is the case which you have to solve. Here is an influence, the natural force of sacred truth, which was fully plied to overcome the unbelief of the young heart, w4th every advantage of fresh interest, the tenderness of maternal love, the gentle and venerable authority of a father amidst the sweet sanctities of home ; plied when the soul was still unformed, and in the plastic gristle of its childhood. But even in this tender heart, the inborn power of ungodliness was too strong; the application utterly failed. But now, after this truth has been exhausted of its power by twenty, thirty, or it may be, fifty years of useless presentation ; and after this native ungodliness, too strong in its infancy, has been hardened by as many years of sin into the rugged bone of manhood, lo ! the powerless truth suddenly becomes powerful ! The stubborn sinner list- ens, feels, and submits ! Natural agencies cannot account for this. The finger of God is there. Let me suppose a parallel case. Years ago, suppose, when the trees which embower this Seminary, were lithe saplings, and I in the vigor of my first prime, you saw me lay hold of one of them with my hands, and attempt to tear it from its seat. But, though a sapling, it was too strong for me. Now years have rolled around, that tree has grown to a giant of the forest ; and I return, no longer in the pride of youth, but a worn and tottering old man ; and you, the same spectators, are here again. You see me go to that very tree, and attempt to wrench it from, its place. You laugh scornfully ; you say : " Does the old fool think he can pull up that sturdy oak ? He was unable to do it before, when it was a sapling, and he was strong." Yes, but suppose the tree came up in his feeble hand ? You would not laugh then ! You would stand awe-struck, and say : " Something greater than nature is here."

And so say I, when I see the sturdy old sinner, hardened by half a century of sins and struggles against the truth, bow before the same old gospel story, which he had so often spurned. When I see the soul which was by nature dead in trespasses and .'-ins, and which has been stiffening and growing more chill, under the appliances of human instruction and per- suasion, at the last, when the zeal and hope and strength of man are almost spent, suddenly quickened under our hands, I know that it is " the exceeding greatness of God's power (not ours) according to the working of His mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead."

Does any one attempt to escape this conclusion by saying that the new efficacy of the truth may have been derived from the superior force or eloquence of the orator who preached it on this occasion, or from the advantage of some such circumstance?

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 565

I have two answers. One is, that there are no circumstances so auspicious, and no eloquence so persuasive as those which this soul has already resisted as an impenitent child. What eloquence is equal to that of the Christian mother, as she draws her beloved son to her knee, and tells him the history of Jesus' love, in accents tremulous with unutterable tenderness ? The other answer is, that the plain facts and persuasives of the gos- pel are, in themselves too infinite to receive any appreciable weight from the trivial incidents of a perspicuous statement and an eloquent tongue. In the simple story of the cross, with divine love there dying a shameful and bitter death for its guilty enemies ; in the offer of a heaven of everlasting and unspeakable bliss, and the threat of an eternal and remediless hell ; even if they be but intelligibly lisped in the feeble voice of a child, there should be a weight so immense, that beside it, all the enlargements of human rhetoric would be as naught

Man's skill of speech does not weigh where Christ and eternity prove too light. It is as though a great mountain had been put in the balance against the mightier strength of ungod- liness, but could not counterpoise it. And then I come and with my puny hand, cast one little stone at the mountain's base and say : " There ; I have added to its weight ; it will no longer prove too light." Such folly is it to expect that man can convert. Where the story of the cross has been resisted, naught can do it, '■ save the exceeding greatness of His power."

But (c) : when w^e consider what the change in the new

birth is, and what the heart to be changed is,

3d Nature Cannot ^^^ plainly scc that the work is above nature.

Revolutionize Itselt. ^^, ^ , -^ . , . , , ,

The soul of a man has its natural laws, as truly as the world of matter. In both worlds, we learn these laws by the uniformity of our experience. Because all men have ever seen water run down hill, therefore, we say that this is the law of its gravitation. And, therefore, when the waters of Jordan stood on a heap while the ark of God and Israel passed through its channel, men knew it was a miracle. The sun and the moon have always proceeded regularly from their rising to their setting. Hence, when their motion ceased at the word of Joshua, it was plainly a miracle.

Now universal observation proves that ungodliness is the natural law of man's soul, as the Scriptures declare. This heart is, in different degrees and phases, universal among natural men, in all races and ages, under all religions and forms of civilization ; whatever religious instincts men may have, and to whatever pious observances they may be driven by remorse, or self-righteousness, or spiritual pride. We percieve that this disposition of soul begins to reveal itself in all children as early as any intelligent moral purpose is disclosed. We observe that while it is sometimes concealed, or turned into new directions by the force of circumstances, it is always latent, and is a uni-

566 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

versal and controlling principle of conduct towards God. We find that it holds its evil sway in spite of all light, and rational conviction in men's own minds, and of inducements drawn from conscience and heaven and hell, which ought to be omnipotent. Such is every man's inward history, until grace reverses his career.

Now I claim that these facts of experience authorize me in regarding this ungodly disposition in man as natural and funda- mental. How do we learn more certainly that any other native trait or affection belongs to the constitution of his soul? It is plain that since Adam's fall, ungodliness is as radically a native disposition of man's soul, as the desire of happiness, or the fear of pain. (John iii : 6.)

But here I remind you, that no man ever reverses or totally eradicates, or revolutionizes any material or fundamental dis- position of soul, by his own purpose or choice ; nor can any mere inducement persuade him to do so. Look and see. These principles may be bent, they may be concealed, they may be turned into new channels by self-interest, or by educa- tion, or by restraint. The same selfishness which in the season of heady youth prompted to prodigality, may in thrifty age inspire avarice ; but it is never eradicated by natural means. Hunger is a natural appetite. Should a physician tell you that he had a patient with a morbid appetite, but that by his elo- quent pictures of the dangers of relapse and death from the imprudent indulgence in food, he had actually caused the man no longer to be hungry ; you would tell him, " Sir, you deceived yourself; you have only persuaded him to curb his hunger; he feels it just as before." Suppose this physician told you, that he had plied his patient's mind with such arguments for the utility of a certain nauseous drug, that it had actually become sweet to his palate? Your good sense would answer: "No, sir; it is in itself bitter to him as before; you have only induced him by the fear of death — a more bitter thing — to swallow it in spite of its odiousness ? "

Try my assertion again, by some of the instinctive pro- pensities of the mind, instead of these animal appetites, and you will find it equally true. The distinction of nieiivi and tuuin is universal in human minds, and the love of one's own possessions is instinctive in men's hearts. Can you then argue or persuade a man into a genuine and absolute indifference to his own ? This was one of the things which monasticism pro- fessed to do : monks were required to take the three vows of " obedience, chastity and poverty." Many devout and super- stitious persons, upon entering monasteries, reduced themselves to absolute and perpetual poverty, by giving their goods to the Church or the poor, and foreswore forever the pursuits by which money is acquired. But was the natural love of posses- sion really eradicated ? The notorious answer was. No. Every

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 5^7

one of these monks was as ready as any other man to contest the posession of his own cell, his own pallet, his own gown and cowl, his own meager food. And for the common wealth of their monastery and order, they uniformly contended with a cunning and greediness which surpassed all others ; until they engrossed to themselves half the wealth of Europe.

The love of applause is native to man. Can reasoning or persuasion truly extinguish it ? These may correct, direct, or conceal this passsion ; they can do no more. The hermit pro- fessed to have extinguished it. He hid himself in deserts and mountains from the society of men, and pretended that he was dead to their praise and their attractions, dead to all but heaven. But he who sought out this hermit and conversed with him, soon detected in him an arrogance and spiritual pride above those of all others : and the chief reason why he was content to dwell in savage solitudes, was that the voice of fancy brought to his soul across the wastes which sundered him irom the haunts of men, their applause for his sanctity, in strains sweeter to his pride than the blare of bugles and the shouts of the multitude.

I return, then, to my point. There is, there can be, no case, in which mere inducements work in man a permanent pur- pose, contrary to the natural dispositions of his soul. But ungodliness is a native, a universal, a radical propensity. Hence, when we see such a revolution in this as the Gospel requires in the new birth, we must believe that it is above nature. This great change not only reforms particular vices, but revolutionizes their original source, ungodliness. It not only causes the renewed sinner to submit to obedience, as the bitter, yet necessary medicine of an endangered soul ; it makes him prefer it for itself, as his daily bread. It not only refrains from sin which is still craved ; as the dyspeptic refuses to him- self the dainties for which he longs, lest his indulgence should be punished with the agonies of sickness ; it hates sin for its own sake. The holy and thorough submission to God's will, which the convert before dreaded and resisted, he now loves and approves. Nothing less than this is a saving change. For God's command is : " My son, give me thine heart." He requireth truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden parts He shall make us to know wisdom. Saith the Saviour; "Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt." Such is the change which makes the real Christian.

This is also more than an argument of experience. By all

sound mental science, man's moral spon-

of?he wm''^^"* ^'^^ taneity, while real, puts itself forth according

to a law. That law is found in the natural

state of his dispositions : i. e., the dispositions direct the will.

Man is free. His soul is (wherever responsible) self-

ures.

568 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

determined, but it is the dispositions which determine the will. Now, it is preposterous to expect the will to renovate the origi- nal dispositions ; the effect to determine its own cause. Nor can the presentation of inducement alone change those dispo- sitions, because the influence, which external objects shall have as inducements, is itself dependent on the state of the disposi- tions. For illustration : What would be thought of an attempt to revolutionize the tastes of the palate for the sweet, by pre- senting the bitter as attractive ? It is the state of that palate by nature which determines the attraction to be in the sweet, and only repulsion in the bitter, A direct physiological agent must be applied.

(d.) We argue this truth from the tenour of Scripture.

First : man's natural condition is said to be i-es^ ' ^"^^ ^"^^ ^^" one of blindness, of deadness, of impotency,

of bondage, of stony-heartedness. Rev. iii : 17; Eph. ii : i; Rom. v : 6; Acts viii : 23; Ezek. xi : 19. Now, these are figures ; but if there is any accuracy or justice in the Bible use of figures, they must be incompatible with the idea that light alone causes vision in the blind eye, or truth and inducement alone, motion in the dead, bound, helpless soul. Next: the proper, supernatural character of regeneration is proved by the Bible accounts of the work itself. It is a new creation. Ps. li : 10; Eph. ii : 10. A new birth. Jno. iii : 5; Titus iii : 5. A resurrection from death. Eph. ii : 1-4, 5. A giving of a fleshly in place of a stony heart. Ezek. xxxvi : 26. An opening of blind eyes. 2 Cor. iv: 6. Here again the crea- ture cannot create itself, the child beget itself, the dead body re-animate itself, the stony heart change itself, the darkness illuminate itself at the prompting of inducements. An external and almighty power is requisite. Again do we urge that if these tropes are not false rhetoric (which none can charge on the Holy Ghost without profanity) they cannot convey less meaning than this: that in this change an external power is exerted on the soul, which the latter can have no share in originating, even as the material, however susceptible of becom- ing an organism, cannot, as material, participate in the initial, fashioning act. We find a third and large class of Scriptures, which speak of the renewing grace as in order to the charac- teristic acts of conversion. Such are Ps. cxix : 18. Prov. xvi : I. Jer. xxxi : ig ; xxxii : 40. Ezek. xxxvi: 27. Acts xiii : 48; xvi: 14, Jno. vi : 44,45. Phil, ii : 13. According to the first of these texts, the opening of the eyes is in order to vision. Then the light, which enters by vision, cannot be the original, opening agent. Again, we have a number of Scriptures, in which the power of the Holy Ghost working in us is distinguish- ed from the Word, See i Cor, ii : 4, 5, i Thess. i : 5, 6. i Cor. iii : 6, 9. Last : The immediate operation of God is asserted in sundry places, in the most discriminating forms of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 569

speech possible. Such are Jno. i: 12, 13. Eph. i: 19, 20, and ii : 10. Further Scriptural and logical proofs will appear under the next head ; which will reinforce the present argu- ment, while bearing especially upon their own proposition,

(e.)If regeneration were by moral suasion, man would be his own saviour in a sense, excluded by the seq'uenLf^"' ""^^ Scriptures: as in i Cor. iv : 7. If it were by moral suasion, of course regenerating grace would always be vincible ; and, consequently, believers would have no sufficient warrant to pray to God for salvation. There would be only a probability at best, that God could save them ; and to the mind taking an impartial survey of the relat- ive numbers who have ever resisted the Gospel, that probability would not appear strong. If the change were by moral suasion only, we should have no difference of kind, between this divine work and the human work of the teacher in training his pupils to right habits, and the temperance lecturer in persuading peo- ple away from drunkenness. Can any one believe that the Scriptures mean no more than this by all their strong assertions of the divine power in effectual calling ? But worse than this, we should leave no generic difference between the renewing work of God and the seductive work of the devil. He decoys men to their ruin, by the suasive influence of objective induce- ments. God allures them to salvation by the suasive influence of an opposite sort of inducements. Thus we should degrade God's almighty work of grace, into an equal contention between Him and His doomed rebel slave, Satan, in which the latter succeeds at least as often as God !

7. There is a sense in which the Holy Ghost is said to ope- Is the Operation of ^^te regeneration only mediately, through the the Spirit Mediate? truth, which is held not by Pelagians, but by Dick's View. Calvinists.

But that we may do no injustice, let us distinguish. Among those who explain depravity and regeneration by Gospel light, there appear to be four grades of opinion. The lowest is that of the Pelagian, who denies all evil habitus of will, regards regeneration as a mere self-determination to a new purpose of living, and holds that it is wrought simply by the moral suasion of the truth. This virtually leaves out the Holy Ghost. The second is that of the semi-Pelagian, who holds that the will is not indeed dead in sin, but that it is greatly corrupted by evil desires, cares of this world, bad example, and evil habits {co7i- suetudines not habitus). Hence, Gospel truth never engages the soul's attention strongly enough to exert an efficacious moral suasion, until the Holy Ghost calms and fixes the mind upon it by His gracious, suasive influence. The truth, thus gaining access to the soul, regenerates it. The third class, disclaiming all semi-Pelagianism, hold that the truth ought to, and would control the will, if clearly and fully seen ; but that in virtue of

570 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the natural blindness of the understanding (which they regard as the source of depravity) the truth cannot be thus seen, until the mind is divinely illuminated ; and this illumination, a true, gracious, spiritual and efficacious work, is regeneration. As soon as that is done, the truth spiritually seen, revolutionizes the will by its natural power; for the will must always follow the preva- lent dictate of the understanding. Such was most probably the scheme of Claude Pajon. The fourth class is that of Dr. Alexander, Dr. Dick, and we presume, of Dr. Hodge. Holding that the rudiments of our depravity are in the blinded under- standing primarily, and in the perverted will derivatively, they also hold that illumination is regeneration ; but they add that, in order for this illumination, a supernatural operation on the mind itself is necessary. And that operation is the causative source of conversion. This distinguishes their scheme from that of Pajon. This also saves their orthodoxy ; yet, we repeat, it seems to us an inconsistent orthodoxy in one particular. We ask them : Is that immediate operation of the Holy Ghost — that prerequisite of illumination — the sovereign and immediate revolution in the habitus of the will ? And they answer, No ;' for that would imply the view which we hold, and they disclaim it, as to the radical source of moral quality in thf soul. What then is the operation ? They reply : We do not know ; it is inscrutable, being back of consciousness. But to us it appears, that if illumination of the understanding is the whole direct effi- ciency of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, it is more natural and consistent to stop where Pajon stops, with a mediate con- version through the truth.

Another consequence of this view must be to modify the

definition of saving faith. If blindness of

Consequences. ^j^^^j j^ ^^^ ultimate element of spiritual

death, and illumination the primary element in regeneration, then faith ought to be defined, as Dr. Alexander does (Relig. Exp.) as being simply, a hearty mental conviction of truth. A third result must be to decide the order in which repentance and faith are related in their generics. From the same prem- ises it must follow, that faith is in order to repentance, instead of repentance being implicit in the first movement of faith and motive thereto, as Scripture seems to teach. This question, then, is by no means a mere logomachy, or a psychological curi- osity. It carries grave results. These divines would by no means teach that regeneration is not a divine, supernatural and invincible work of grace. But they suppose that the essential change is in the illumination of the understanding, which God's Spirit indeed almightily effects; but, to effect, which, nothing more is needed than to secure for the truth a true spiritual apprehension by the understanding. The truth being truly apprehended, they suppose the renovation of the will follows as a necessary result, without further supernatural agency;.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 57 1

because, according to our Calvinistic psychology, the soul's emo- tions are governed by its views of the objects thereof; and the will always follows the latest and most decisive conviction of the understanding. They claim the order of phrases in the Cate- chism, question 31. They sometimes describe the alternative doctrine, as teaching that depravity is in the feelings as distin- guished from the intelligence ; that the only inability of the sinner is his disinclination to good, that the understanding fol- lows the will; instead of the will's following the understanding, that regeneration is only a change in the feelings ; and that it affects only a part (the emotive) and not the whole of the soul. Much stress is laid by them on the fact, that the soul is a monad, and its faculties not divisible parts, but only modes of function in the monadic spirit ; that both depravity and regene- ration are not by patches, but of the soul as a soul.

But we beg leave to re-state our view in our own way.

^ . ^ The soul is a unit, a monad, not constituted.

Definition of Doc- i. • i i.i • c 1. u

tj.j;^g as material things are, ot parts, or members ;

but endowed with faculties which are distinct modes of its indivisible activity. These, according to the psy- chology of the Bible and of common sense, fall into the three divisions of intelligence, will, and sensibility — the latter class being passive powers. By the word " will," in this discussion, we mean, not the specific power of volition, but that which the Reformed divines and our Confession mean by it, the whole active power of man's spontaneity ; what Sir William Hamil- ton terms "the conative powers;" i. e. the whole faculty of active desire and purpose. While the soul is simply passive only in its sensibilities, and its functions of intelligence are its own self-directed functions, yet it is by its will, or conative powers, that it is an agent, or puts forth its spontaneity. Now, the soul is depraved as a soul; and is regenerated as a soul; not by patches or parts, seeing it has no parts. But we conceive that this obvious fact is entirely consistent with the proposition, that sin (or holiness) affects the soul as to one of its faculties more primarily than the others. And let us remark here once for all, that it is entirely inconsistent in Dr. Hodge, to object the sim- plicity of the soul to those who think with us, that sin affects the soul rudimentally in the faculty of will, and consequentially in those of understanding and sensibility ; when he himself teaches, vice versa, that sin affects it rudimentally in the faculty of intelligence, and consequentially in those of. will and sensi- bility. For, if the fact that the soul is a unit refutes us, it equally refutes him. Both opinions would in that case be out of the question equally, and the debate impossible. Again: Dr. Hodge, and those who think with him, dwell much on the complexity. of the soul's acts, as involving at once two or more of its faculties or modes of function. They tell us that an act of understanding accompanies every act of desire or choice.

572 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

True. But they themselves go on to assert a relation of causa- tion between the intellective element and the conative element, as to the production, or rise of the concrete act of soul. Why, then, may not we assign a causative relation to the one or the other of these two elements, as to the moral quality of that concrete act of soul ? We shall find the divines we indicate, (as Chalmers, A. Alexander, and Hodge,) when hardly bestead to sustain their peculiar views on this point, resorting very freely to the statements, that the soul is a unit ; that it is de-^ praved or regenerated as a unit ; that -it acts as a unit ; that it performs one concrete function often through two or more faculties, which act not separately as members, but only distin- guishably as modes of function. We repeat, all this is granted ; but it is irrelevant. For it would, if it proved anything in the case, as much preclude the one causative order as the other. It would be as unreasonable to say " the understanding guides the will," as to say " the will sways the understanding." Let tliis be remembered.

We have thus disencumbered the issue which we wish to examine. It is this : In defining depravity, are we to place the rudimentary element of the sinful nature, in the blinded under- standing, misleading the spontaneity, and thus qualifying the soul as a whole morally evil ? Such is the view of the divines named. Or, are we to find it rudimentally in the perverted habitus of the will, causatively corrupting and blinding the understanding, and thus qualifying the soul as a whole morally evil? Such is our understanding of the Scriptures, and the Reformed theology.

In support of this, we advance this simple argument. By its function of intelligence the soul sees ; by * ■ its will it acts. Now, does not common sense

teach us, that moral responsibility attaches to those acts and states of soul which it puts forth from itself, by its sponta- neity, more primarily than to those with which it is affected by causes out of itself? Witness the fact, that multitudes of per- cepts and concepts affect our minds, without any movement of desire or volition whatever ; the former from objective sources, the latter from the instinctive law of suggestion. This is the decisive feature which, according to common sense, forbids our regarding the cognitive acts of the soul as those by which it is primarily qualified with moral character.

It is true, that conscience is the faculty, which is our moral guide; but then our moral quality as persons is in our con- formity or enmity to that guidance. What is it, in us, that is conformed or opposed to that guidance? Primarily, the will. And this brings our debate, it appears to us, up to that scriptu- ral test, which is the decisive one. It so happens that the Holy Ghost has given us an exact definition of the idea of sin, *// d-imozla iaziv /y di^oiuo., (i John iii : 4,) which our Catechism

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. 2 Cor. iv: 6
  2. Ezek. xxxvi: 27
  3. Eph. i: 19

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 573-

imitates. The vofio^, the standard is, first, the law of our moral nature written on our hearts by our Creator ; and, secondly, His revealed precepts taught to our intellects. The sin consists, according to St. John, in lack of conformity to that standard. We repeat the question : What is it in sinful man which is not conformed to that standard ? Every sinner's consciousness answers ; partially the reason, but chiefly and primarily the will ; and thence, consequentially, the animal appetites and bodily members. This scriptural view is confirmed by one remark : Let any one collect as many as he can, of those acts of men, to which the Scriptures and theologians appeal, as a posteriori proofs of native depravity, and he will find that they all fall under this common predication — that in them the will opposes itself obstinately to the soul's own moral judgments. This, in fine, is the analytic statement of that universal fact, in which the moral disorder and ruin of man's soul manifests itself.

The reasonings which we have attempted to answer seem to us to involve this illusion ; that because man is a reasonable agent, his spontaneity is but a modification of his reason. But is this so ? Is not this sufficiently refuted, by the fact which Dr. Hodge cites against us ; that other creatures have a sponta- neity, which have no reason ? In truth, spontaneity is an ulti- mate fact of human consciousness, and an ultimate power of the soul, as much so as reason. ' It is co-ordinate in primariness and simplicity with the power of reason. It has its own origi- nal habitus, its " disposition," which re-acts on the reason as truly as it is acted on. Against this view some may cry out : " Then the action of a man^s spontaneity might be no more a rational action, than the pulsation of his heart !" We reply : The instance is unfair ; because the will is not a separate member like that muscle called " heart" in the body ; but it is a mode of function of the soul, a spiritual unit. And that soul which wills is a rational unit. So that all action of will is the action of a rational agent. But we concede that spontaneity is sometimes unconsciously irrational ; and that is lunacy. Often- tim_es it is contra rational ; and that is sinfulness. Sometimes, by God's grace, we find it truly conformed to reason ; and that is holiness.

But the favorite plea of the fathers who differ with us, is that it is the recognized doctrine of all sound Arise.^^ °'^^ pinions pi-^iiQgQpi^^grs, that the will follows the preva- lent judgment of the intellect. They say: " Man feels as his mind sees ; the view of the mind therefore must direct or govern the feeling ; and the prevalent last judg- ment must decide the will." It is from this statement Dr. Hodge infers that depravity and holiness must be ultimately traced to the intellect; Dr. Dick infers that the revolution of the will, in effectual calling, is the natural effect of true illumi- nation ; and Dr. Alexander infers that a faith which is simply

574 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

full convection of the truth, is all we need to make the soul embrace salvation and duty. This psychological law we fully admit ; it is what defines man as a reasonable agent. That is, granted that the prevalent judgment of the intellect be of a given nature on a specific subject, then the feeling and choice of the soul on that subject will of course correspond. But the analysis stops one step too short. Whence the kind of view and judgment which the intellect is found to have on that given subject ? Is it always of a purely intellectual origin ? This is tacitly assumed, but erroneously. Let the subject be one of a moral nature, involving an object of choice or desire, and it will be found that there, the heart has taught the head ; the opinion is the echo of the disposition ; the power of spontaneity, co-or- dinate with that of intelligence, has announced its own original habitus. Let us explain : A child tastes experimentally, candies, sweetmeats, honey, sugar. In each case his palate is gratified. On this similarity of power to gratify the palate, his mind con- structs a generalization, forms the class of "sweet things," and concludes the general judgment; "Sweet things are good." Now, this general judgment may be as truly and purely ac- counted an intellectual process, as the arithmetical one that a larger subtrahend must make a smaller remainder. And it may be said that, in every subsequent desire and purpose to seek the " sweet things," the child's will follows this intellectual judg- ment. Very true. And yet it is none the less true, that the judgment is itself a generalization of a series of acts of appe- tency; the mere echo of the instinctive verdict of an animal appetite. So that in its last analysis, the causation of the choice is traced up, through thp intellect, to a law of the spon- taneity.

We shall be reminded that the instance we have chosen gives us only an animal appetite, a phenome- FoliJw thi H?art?'°"' !^o^ of animal spontaneity ; whereas the thing in debate is moral emotion and choice, which is always rational emotion and choice. This we fully admit, and we advance the instance only for an illustration. Perhaps it is a clumsy one. But has not the will as real, and as original, appetencies, as the palate ? When we call the former rational, moral desires, what do we mean? That disposition is nothing but a modification of thought ? We apprehend that our mean- ing is this : the intellect is the faculty by which we conceive the object of the moral appetency; as, in the case of the animal appetite, the nerves of sensation are the medium by which we perceive the sweet object. Yet in the moral phenomenon, there is an original disposition of will, which is as truly a spiritual appetency, as the bodily appetite is an animal appetency. If we are correct in this, we shall find that the judgments general- ized in the mind, as to the desirableness of moral good or evil, however purely intellectual, when abstracted from their source.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 575

are yet but the echoes of the original, or regenerated appeten- cies of the will. Let us now apply this analysis to the sinner's conversion. Why does the renewed sinner embrace Christ as a Saviour from sin, by his faith ; and new obedience instead of sin, by his repentance ? Because his understanding illuminated by grace, now judges clearly that salvation and new obedience are not only the obligatory, but the preferable good. Such is our brethrens' answer ; and we fully assent. Were it not so, the new choice would not be rational, and so, not spiritual. But now, one question more ; How came this illuminated intellect to judge the salvation from sin, and the new obedience, the prefer- able good ; when the original, native disposition of the will was to prefer the sin, and dislike the obedience ? It was only because the Holy Ghost sovereignly revolutionized the disposition of will. This was the primary cause ; illumination the immediate consequence ; and faith and repentance the practical result. Thus the profound Paschal, {Pcnsees, ire Partie. § 3); '"God alone can put divine truths into the soul; and by the mode which pleases Him. I know He hath willed them to enter from the heart into the mind, and not from the mind into the heart, in order to humble the proud power of reasoning, which pre- sumes to be judge of the things the will chooses, and in order to heal this infirm will, which has wholly corrupted itself by its unworthy attachments. And hence it results, that while in speaking of human affairs, men say : One must know in order, to love, which hath passed into a proverb ; the saints on the contrary say, in speaking of divine things : " One must love in order to know."

But the decisive appeal should be, not to philosophy, but to the Scriptures. These would seem to sus-

ScHpfure!"^"^ ^'°''' ^^^" o"^ vi^^^ ^^ ^ multitude of places; where sin and depravity are traced to an "evil heart," a "hardened heart;" and holiness to a "pure heart;" or where regeneration is a cleansing of the heart, a giving of a fleshly heart.

But there are Scriptures which not only do this, but do also assign an order; and with reference to moral objects, the order of relation is from the heart to the head. Here we claim all the texts already cited touching the relation of repentance to faith. We claim also, Mark iii : 5, where Jesus disapproved the Pharisees' theory of Sabbath observance ; and this because He was "grieved at the hardness of their heart." So, in Eph. iv : 18, Gentiles "have the understanding {d:duo:a) darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness (or hardness, izcoocoa:^), of their heart." Here the Apostle distinctly traces sinful ignorance to the heart for its source. Nor can this be evaded by saying that heart here means " soul," " mind." For this would be flagrantly violent exegesis : When the Apostle has designedly introduced

5/6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

a distinct reference to the state of the cognitive faculty, by his- own, most discriminative word, ocduoca: and then, evidently, de- signs to refer to the conative faculties of the soul, by the recog- nized word for them, xayoca ; will any one say he shall not teach what he aims to teach? Had he still meant " understanding," we presume He would have still said " oravo^a," in the last mem- ber of the verse. Permit such interpretation, and next, we shall meet this fate, viz : That when we are trying our best to say, that in spiritual things, "the heart leads the head ;" we shall be told: "No, you do not mean that; you use the word 'heart' in the comprehensive sense of ' soul ;" you mean that the head leads the head !"

We are also referred to many passages, where, as our

brethren understand them, regeneration is

Other Scriptures Re- cJegcj-ibed as illumination, and depravity as

concilecl. jr y

blindness. "To turn them from darkness to light." " God," says Paul, " was pleased to reveal His Son in me." " The eyes of the understanding being enlightened." " Sanctify them through thy truth." •" Renewed in knowledge after the image," etc. " God hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ." We reply that regeneration doubtless includes illumination, as an essential and glorious part thereof. But it is a different thing to say that regeneration is only illumination. Should we force the Scriptures to assert the latter, we should only make the Bible contradict itself, when it describes a quickening or revolutionizing work of divine grace, which is in order to illumination, and therefore prior in causation.

We are thus led back to that application of our theory,

which is at once its best illustration and most This Psychology ap- j^nportant use ; its bearing upon the doctrine phed to the Question. i tti!-i • >=> ^

that the Holy Ghost in regeneration operates,

not only mediately through the Word, but also immediately and supernaturally.

(a.) Because the Scriptures often speak of a spiritual power precedaneous to the truth, on the operation of which power, the saving apprehension of truth is conditioned. See Ps. cxix : i8. The opening is the precedent cause ; the beholding of wonderful things out of the law, the consequence. As the eye closed by cat- aract cannot be restored to vision by any pouring of beams of light on it, however pure and condensed, so the soul does not acquire spiritual vision by bringing the truth alone in any degree of spiritual contact. The surgeon's knife goes before, removing the obstruction ; then, on the presentation of light, vision results. Both must concur. Let the student examine, in the same way, Luke xxiv : 45 ; Eph. i : 17, 18 ; Acts xvi : 14 ; I Cor. iii : 6, 7, 9; Jer. xxxi : 33.

(b.) We argue, secondly, against this conception of deprav- ity and regeneration, and in favor of the immediate agency of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 577

the Holy Ghost, that were the former scheme true (even as set forth by Dr. Dick), faith would be in order to the regeneration of tlie will. However he might eliminate any sequence of time, if " this gracious knowledge necessarily leads the will from the world to God," it remains clear, that faith as cause must precede this first renewal of the will. But the Scriptures make faith the fruit of renewal. The other view is Arminian.

(c.) The analytical exposure of the absurdity of the Pela- gian scheme, regeneration by moral suasion, results ultimately in this, namely ; that the state of disposition determines a priori whether any given object presented to the soul shall be of the nature of objective inducement or not. Moral suasion is that influence over the will, which objects of natural or moral excel- lence, presented from without, are supposed to have as induce- ments to right feeling and choice. Now, any object whatsoever is not inducement to any being whatsoever. One cannot at- tract a hungry horse with bacon ; nor a hungry man with hay. Whether the object shall be inducement, depends upon its rela- tion to the existing appetency of the being to be influenced. And that state of appetency is obviously related, as cause, to the influence of the inducement as occasion. Hence, if the sin- ner's will is naturally indisposed and disabled to all spiritual good, that good cannot exert moral suasion over that will ; for the simple reason that the effect cannot reverse its own cause. Such is the argument ; and it is exhaustive. But now, who does not see that this analysis proceeds upon our theory ; that the will has its own disposition, original, characteristic ? If the kabitus of the will is nothing else than a modification of the intelligence ; and the sinner's intellect is adequate to the more intellectual apprehension of moral truth (as it is), we see no reason why moral suasion might not be expected to " lead the will necessarily from the world to God."

(d.) Dr. Hodge expounds, with peculiar force and fullness, the solemn fact, that there is a " common grace " of the Holy Ghost (which is not " common sufficient grace ") convincing men of sin and misery up to a certain grade ; but not renewing them. Now, this partial, spiritual light in unrenewed minds must be correct light as far as it goes ; for it is the Spirit's. Yet it does not even partially subdue the enmity of those minds to God and duty. The usual effect is to inflame it. See Rom. vii : 8, 9. It appears, then, that light, without immediate grace revolutionizing the will, does not effect the work. Nor is the evasion just, that this conviction of duty inflames the carnal en- mity, only because depravity has made it a distorted and erro- neous view of duty. We assert that convicted, but unrenewed souls fight against God and duty, not because He is miscon- ceived, but because He begins to be rightly conceived. There is, of course, distortion of mental view concerning him as long as sin reigns ; but He is now feared and hated, not only because 37*

578 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of that error of view ; rather is He the more feared and hated, because the sinful soul now begins to see Him with less error, as a sovereign, holy, just, pure Being.

(e) We infer the same view of sin and new birth, from the regeneration of infants. They cannot be renewed by illumina- tion, because their intellects are undeveloped. Yet they are re- newed. Now, we grant that there is a wide difference in the circumstances and means of their redemption, and that of adults. Yet are they delivered from a state of original sin generically the same with ours ; and delivered by the same Redeemer and Sanctifier, Must not the method of the renewing power be the same intrinsically? Luke xviii : 17.

(f.) This view gives us a consistent rationale of that impo- Doctrine True be- tency of the natural man to receive the things cause it Explains car- of the Spirit of God, which are foolishness nal blindness. ^j^^.^ \{y^^ described in I Cor. ii : 14, and else-

where. This impotency too plainly exists. Dr. Dick cannot define wherein it consists. See his 66th Lecture. Does it con- sist in the absence of any substantive revelation, which the be- liever gains ? No ; this would be perilous fanaticism. Does it consist in the hiding of any esoteric sen -e of the Word to which the believer has the key ? No ; this would be Origenism. Does it consist in the loss of a cognitive faculty by the fall ? No ; that would suspend his responsibihty. Whence this im- potency? They have no answer.

But we have one. The will has its own habitus, regulative of all its fundamental acts, which is not a mere modification of the intelligence, but its own co-ordinate, original character ; a simple, ultimate fact of the moral constitution. Hence an inter- action of will and intellect. On moral and spiritual subjects the practical generalisations of the intellect are founded on the dic- tates of the disposition of the will. But now, these practical judgments of the sinner's understanding, prompted by the car- nal disposition, contradict certain propositions which are pre- mises to the most important gospel conclusions and precepts. No wonder, then, that such a mind cannot apprehend them as reasonable ! For example : The sinner's real opinion, taught by a carnal heart, is, that sin in itself, apart from its penalty which self-love apprehends as an evil, would be the preferred good. A gospel is now explained to him, proposing deliverance from this sin, through the instrumentality of faith. But the plan postulates the belief that the sin is per se so great an evil, that deliverance from it is a good greatly to be desired ! No wonder, then, that, as this postulate breaks upon the understand- ing of the sinner, he is obfuscated, stumbled, dumb-founded ! He is required to act on a belief which his carnal heart will not let him believe. His action, to be reasonable, must assume sin to be hatetful. But he loves it ! He feels that he naturally loves it, and only hates its consequences. " He cannot know

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 579

the truth, for it is spiritually discerned." Were a sprightly child allured to approach the reader by the promise of " something good," and told that he should have it upon holding out his hand for it; and were he to perceive, just then, that the thing you held out was a nauseous medicine, of whose utility to him- self he was ignorant, he would be struck with a similar " ina- bility." There would be a sense in which he would become un- able to hold out his hand even : he would not know how to do it. He would stand confused. Now, this child is not becoming idiotic, but his native appetencies repel that which you propose as an attraction ; and, hence, his obstinate apprehension of the unreasonableness of your proposal.

Thus, as it appears to us, the simple psychology, which is assumed in the Bible, is found to be the truest philosophy, and throws a flood of light upon the doctrines held in common by us and by all Calvinists.

SYLLABUS

1. Give a connected view of the Anninian Five Points.

Art. of Synod of Dort. Whitby's Five Points. Hill's Divinity, bk. iv, ch. 8. Stapfer's Pol. TheoL, Vol. iv, ch. 17, ^ 12-35.

2. Disprove the doctrine of Common Sufficient Grace.

Turrcttin, Loc. xv, Qu. 3. Hill, bk. iv, ch. 9, ^ i. Ridgley, Qu. 44. Wat- son's Theol. Inst., ch. 24, 25.

3. Is the grace of God in regeneration invincible? And is the will of man in ■regeneration, active or passive ?

Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. 5, 6. Hill, bl?. iv, ch. 9. Knapp, § 130, 132.

4. Can any Pagans be saved, without the instrumentality of the Scriptures ? Turrettin, Loc. i, Qu. 4, and Loc. x, Qu. 5. Ridgley, Qu. 60. Annual Ser- mon for Presb. Board For. Miss., June, 1858.

I HE subjects which are now brought under discussion intro- duce us to the very centre of the points which are debated between us and Arminians. I pro- minian Theolo^'! ^' pose, therefore, for their farther illustration, and l^ecause no better occasion offers, to con- sider here their scheme.

The sources of Arminian Theology would be best found in the apology of Episcopius, Limborch's Christian Theology, and Knapp's Christian Theology. Among the English may be consulted, as a low Arminian, Daniel Whitby's Five Points ; as high Arminians, Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts, and Watson's Theological Institutes. For refutation of Arminianism, see Stapfer, Vol. 4 ; Turrettin ; Hill, bk. 4, ch. 9.

I. A connected view of the Arminian tenets:

580 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The five points handed in by the Arminians to the States Five Points of Re- General of Holland, in their celebrated Re- monstrants Amblgu- monstrance, were so covertly worded as °^^- scarcely to disclo^sc their true sentiments.

The assertions concerning original Sin and Free will, were seemingly such as Calvinists could accept. The doctrine of common grace was but obscurely hinted ; and the perseverance of Saints was only doubted. But their system soon developed itself into semi-Pelagianism, well polished and knit together. Discarding the order of the five points, I will exhibit the theory in its logical connection.

I. Its starting point is the doctrine of indifference of the

T ■ , c • will, and a denial of total depravity, as held

Logical Source in ' . -^ , -'^ ' . ,

Doctrine of Indiffer- by Calvmists. Accordmg to the universal ency of the Will, consent of Pelagians and Socinians, this View of Original Sm. gelf-determination of the will is held neces- sary to proper free agency and responsibility. Take Whitby as a type of the grosser Arminians. He thinks Adam was created liable, but not subject, to bodily death, and his immu- nity in Paradise was secured by his access to the Tree of Life. His sin made death and its attendant pains inevitable ; and this his posterity inherit, according to the natural law, that like begets like. This has produced a set of circumstances, making all men so liable to sin, that, practically, none escape. But this results from no moral necessity or certainty of the will. Man has natural desires for natural good, but this conciipisccntia is not sin till formed into a positive volition. But the sense of guilt and fear drives man from God, the pressure of earthly ills tends to earthly mindedness ; man's pains make him querulous, envious, inordinate in desire ; and above all, a general evil example misleads. So that all are, in fact, precipitated into sin, in virtue of untoward circumstances inherited from Adam. This is the only sense in which Adam is our federal head. This relation is not only illustrated by, but similar to, that which exists between a bad parent and an unfortunate offspring now — in instance of the same natural law.

But Wesley and Watson repudiate this, as too low ; and teach a fall in Adam, prior to its reparation OH^^narsin ^^^^ °^ ^^ common grace, going as far as moderate Calvinists. Watson, for instance, (Vol. ii, p. 53, &c.,) says that imputation is considered by theologians as mediate and immediate. Mediate imputation he says, is " our mortality of body and corruption of moral nature in virtue of our derivation. from Adam." Immediate means "that Adam's sin is accounted ours in the sight of God, by virtue of our fed eral relation." This, the student will perceive, is a very differ- ent distinction from that drawn by the Reformed divines. Watson then repudiates the first statement as defective; and the latter as extreme. Here he evidently misunderstands us :

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 58 1

for he proceeds to say, with Dr. Watts, that Adam did act as a pubHc person ; our federal head, and that the penal consequen- ces of our sin (not the sin itself), are accounted to us, consist- ing of bodily ills and death, privation of God's indwelling, (which results in positive depravity) and eternal death. In this sense, says he,"we may safely contend for the imputation of Adam's sin,"

But in defending against Pelagians, &c., the justice of this arrangement of God, he says it must be viewed in connection with that purpose of redemption towards the human race, which co-existed in the divine mind, by which God purposed to purchase and bestow common grace on every fallen man, thus repairing his loss in Adam. (The fatal objection to such a justification is, that then God would have been under obliga- tions to provide man a Saviour : and Christ's mission would not have been of pure grace).

2. This leads us to their next point : God having intended all along to repair the fall, and having imme- Gracr'^°" ^ ^^^^ diately thereafter given a promise to our first parents, has ever since communicated to all mankind a common precedaneous sufficient grace, purchased for all by Christ's work. This is not sufficient to effect a com- plete redemption, but to enable, both naturally and morally, to fulfil the conditions for securing redeeming grace. This com- mon grace consists in the indifferency of man's will remaining, notwithstanding his fall, the lights of natural conscience, good impulses enabling unregenerate men to do works of social vir- tue, the outward call of mercy made, as some Arminians sup- pose, even to heathens through reason, and some lower forms of universal spiritual influence. The essential idea and argu- ment of the Arminian is, that God could not punish man justly for unbelief, unless He conferred on him both natural and moral ability to believe or not. They quote such Scripture as Ps. Ixxxi : 13 ; Is. v : 4 ; Luke xix : 42 ; Rev. iii : 20 ; Rom. ii : 14 ; John 1:9. So here we have, by a different track, the old con- clusion of the semi-Pelagian. Man, then, decides the whole remaining difference, as to believing or not believing, by his use of this precedent grace, according to his own free will. God's purpose to produce different results in different men is wholly conditioned on the use which. He foresees, they will make of their common grace. To those who improve it, God stands pledged to give the crowning graces of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. To the heathen, even, who use their light aright, (unfavourable circumstances may make such instances rare), Christ will give gospel light and redeeming grace, in some inscrutable way.

3. Hence, the operations of grace are at every stage vin- ^ . r> cible by man's will ; to be otherwise, they

Grace m Kegenera- y ' . . ' ■'

tion Vincible. must Violate the conditions of moral agency.

582 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

1

Even after regeneration, grace may be so resisted by free will,, as to be dethroned from the soul, which then again becomes unrenewed.

4. The redeeming work of Christ was equally for all and

ev^ery man of the human race, to make his era^.^"^^""^''"" ^'"' sins pardonable on the condition of faith. to

purchase a common sufficient grace actually enjoyed by all, and the efficient graces of a complete redemp- tion suspended on the proper improvement of common grace by free will. Christ's intention and provision are, therefore, the same to all. But as justice requires that the pardoned rebel shall believe and repent, to those who, of their own choice, refuse this, the provision remains forever ineffective.

5. In the doctrine of justification, again, the lower and

higher Arminians difier somewhat. Both de- Justification. ^^^ justification as consisting simply of par-

don. According to the lower, this justification is only purchased by Christ in this, that He procured from God the admission of a lower Covenant, admitting faith and the Evangelical obedi- ence flowing out of it, as a righteousness, in place of the perfect obedience of the Covenant of works. According to the higher, our faith (without the works its fruits) is imputed to us for righteousness, according, as they suppose, to Rom. iv : 5. Both deny the proper imputation of Christ's active (as dis- tinguished from His passive) obedience, and deny any imputa- tion, except of the believer's own faith ; although the higher Arminians, in making this denial, seem to misunderstand imputation as a transference of moral character.

Hence, it will be easily seen, that their conception of elec- tion must be the following : The only abso- 6. Personal Election ^ ^^^ unconditional decree which God

Conditional. , r • • >

has made from eternity, concerning man s

salvation, is His resolve that unbelievers shall perish. This is not a predestinating of individuals, but the fixing of a General Principle. God does, indeed, (as they explain Rom. ix-xi chapters), providentially and sovereignly elect races to the enjoyment of certain privileges ; but this is not an election to salvation ; for free-will may in any or each man of the race, abuse the privileges, and be lost. So far as God has an exter- nal purpose toward individuals, it is founded on His foresight, which He had from eternity, of the use they would make of their common grace. Some, He foresaw, would believe and repent, and therefore elected them to justification. Others, He foresaw, would not only believe and repent, but also persevere to the end ; and these He elected to salvation.

A thoroughly-knit system, if its premises are granted.

n. The refutation of the Arminian theory must be deferred, on some points, till we pass to other heads of divinity, as Justification and Final Perseverance. On the extent of the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 583

atonement enough has already been said. On the remaining points we shall now attempt to treat.

In opposition to the assertion of a comm6n sufificient grace, we remark, 1st. That there is no suf- GraceTd-utel"^"'"' ficient evidence of it in Scripture. The pas- sages quoted above do, indeed, prove that God has done for all men under the gospel all that is needed to effect their salvation, if their own wills are not depraved. But they only express the fact that God's general benevolence would save all to whom the gospel comes, if they would repent ; and that the obstacles to that salvation are now only in the sinners. But whether it is God's secret purpose to over- come that internal obstacle, in their own perverse wills, these texts do not say, It will be found, on examination, that they all refer merely to the external call, which we have proved, comes short of the effectual call : or that they are addressed to persons who, though shortcoming, or even backsliding, are regarded as God's children already. Look and see.

The doctrine is false in fact ; for how can grace be suffi- cient, where the essential outward call, even, in Fact. "*^ ""^ ^ ^^' is lacking ? Rom. x : 14. God declares, in Scripture, He has given up many to evil. Acts xiv : 16; Rom. i : 21, 28 ; ix : 18. Again: the doctrine is contradicted by the whole doctrine of God, concerning the final desertion of those who have grieved away the Holy Ghost. See Hos. iv : 17; Gen. vi : 3 ; Heb. vi : 1-6. Here is a class so deserted of grace, that their damnation becomes a certainty. Are they, therefore, no longer free, responsible and blameable ?

3. If we take the Arminian description of common suffi- cient grace, then many who have its elements most largel}', an enlightened conscience, frequent compunctions, competent religious knowledge, amiability, and natural virtues, good impulses and resolutions, are lost ; and some, who seem before to have very, little of these, are saved. How is this ? Again : the doctrine does not commend itself to experience ; for this tells us that, among men, good intentions are more rare than good opportunities. We see that some men have vastly more opportunity vouchsafed them by God's providence than others. It would be strange if, contrary to the fact just stated, all those who have less opportunity should have better intentions than opportunities.

We have sometimes illustrated the Wesleyan doctrine of

common sufficient grace thus : "All men lie 4. Common Gi'ace, • ^u < t i r j j > •

if Sufficient Saves. ^^ ^^^ slough ot despond m consequence

of the fall. There is a platform, say Armin- ians, elevated an inch or two above the surface of this slough, but yet firm, to which men must struggle in the exercise of their common sufficient grace alone, the platform of repentance

584 SYLLABUS AND MOTES

and faith. Now, it is true, that from this platform man could no more climb to heaven without divine grace, than his feet could scale the moon. But God's grace is pledged to lift up to heaven all those who will so employ their free-agency, as to climb to that platform, and stay there." Now, we say, with the Arminian, that a common sufficient grace, which does not work faith and repentance, is in no sense sufficient ; for until these graces are exercised, nothing is done. Heb. xi : 6 ; Jno. iii : ;^6. But he who has these graces, we farther assert, has made the whole passage from death to life. That platform is the plat- form of eternal life. The whole difference between elect and non-elect is already constituted. See John iii : 36 ; i John v :

I ; Acts xiii : 48 ; 2 Cor. v : 17, with Eph. iii : 17. If then there is sufficient grace, it is none other than the grace which effectu- ates redemption ; and the Arminian should say, if consistent with his false premises, not that God by it puts it in every man's free will to fulfill the conditions on which further saving com- munications depend ; but that He puts it in every man's free will to save himself.

If the doctrine is true, it is every man's own uninfluenced 5. Or else, it is either choice, and not the purpose of God, which not Common, or not determines his eternal destiny. Either the Sufhcient. Common grace effects its saving work in those

who truly believe, in virtue of some essential addition made to its influences by God, or it does not. If the former, then it was not "common," nor "sufficient," in those who failed to receive that addition. If the latter, then the whole difference in its suc- cess must have been made by the man's own free will resisting less — i. e., the essential opposition to grace in some souls, dif- fers from that in others. But see Rom. iii : 12, 27 ; Eccl. viii :

I I ; Eph. ii : 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. iv : 7 ; Rom. ix : 16 ; and the whole tenour of that multitude of texts, in which believers ascribe their redemption, not to their own superior docility or peni- tence, but to distinguishing grace.

To attain the proper point of view for the rational refuta- tion of the doctrine of " common " sufficient grace, it is only necessary to ask this question : What is the nature of the obstacle grace is needed to remove? Scripture answers in substance, that it is inability of will, which has its rudiments in an ungodly Jiabitus of soul. That is to say : the thing grace has to remove is the soul's own evil disposition. Now, the idea that any cause, natural or supernatural, half rectifies this, so as to bring this disposition to an ^equipoise, is absurd. It is the nature of disposition to be disposed : this is almost a truism. It is impossible to think a moral agent devoid of any and all disposition. If God did pro- duce in a sinful soul, for one instant, the state which com- mon sufficient grace is supposed to realize, it would be an absurd tertium quid, in a state of moral neutrality. As we

*■ OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 585

argued against the Pelagian, that state, if possible, would be immoral, in that it implied an indifferent equipoise as to pos- itive obligations. And the initial volitions arising out of that state would not be morally right, because they would not spring out of positive right motives ; and such acts, being v/orthless, could not foster any holy principles or habits. The dream of common grace is suggested obviously, by the Pelagian confu- sion of inability of will with compulsion. The inventor has his mind full of some evil necessity which places an external obstruction between the sinner and salvation ; hence this dream of an aid, sufficient but not efficacious, which lifts away the obstruction, and yet leaves the sinner undetermined, though free, to embrace Christ. Remember that the obstruction is in the will ; and the dream perishes. The aid which removes it can be nothing short of that, which determines the will to Christ. The peculiar inconsistency of the Wesleyan is seen in this : that, when the Pelagian advances this idea of Adam's creation in a state of moral neutrality, the Wesleyan (see Wes- ley's Orig. sin. or Watson, ch. i8th), refutes it by the same irre- fragible logic with the Calvinists. He proves the very state of soul to be preposterous and impossible. Yet, when he comes to effectual calling, he imagines a common grace, which results, at least for a time, in the same impossible state of the soul ! It is a reversion to Pelagius.

The views of regeneration which Calvinists present, in

calling the grace of God therein invincible, rattif invincibfe!^'''" ^^^ .i" denying the synergism {ao^.eor^co) of

man s will therein, necessarily flow from their view of original sin. We do not deny that the common call is successfully resisted by all non-elect gospel sinners ; it is be- cause God never communicates renewing grace, as He never intended in His secret purpose. Nor do we deny that the elect, while under preliminary conviction, struggle against grace, with as much obstinacy as they dare ; this is ensured by their de- praved nature. But on all those whom God purposes to save, He exerts a power, renewing and persuading the will, so as in- fallibly to ensure their final and voluntary submission to Christ. Hence we prefer the word invincible to irresistible. This doc- trine we prove, by all those texts which speak of God's power in regeneration as a new creation, birth, resurrection ; for the idea of successful resistance to these processes, on the part of the dead matter, or corpse, or fcetiis, is preposterous. Convic- tion may be resisted ; regeneration is invincible. We prove it again from all those passages which exalt the divine and mighty power exerted in the work. See Eph. i : 19, 20; Ps. ex : 3. Another emphatic proof is found in this, that otherwise, God could not be sure of the conversion of all those He purposed to convert ; yea, not of a single one of them ; and Christ would have no assurance that He should ever " see of the travail of

586 , SYLLABUS AND NOTES

His soul " in a single case ! For, in order for God to be sure of the result, He must put forth power adequate to overcome all opposing resistances. But see all those passages, in which the security and immutability of God's purposes of grace are as- serted. Rom. ix : 21, 23 ; Eph. i : 4; John xv ; 16, Sec, &c. Eph. ii : 10.

Here, the Arminian rejoins, that God's scientia media, or

foreknowledge of the contingent acts of free InSequatr'^""''''"^"' agents (arising not from His purpose of con-

trol over those acts, but from His infinite in- sight into their character, and the way it will act under foreseen circumstances), enables Him to foreknow certainly who will im- prove their common grace, and that some will. His eternal purposes are not crossed, therefore, they say, because He only purposed from eternity to save those latter. The fatal answer is, that if the acts of free agents are certainly foreseen, even with this scientia media, they are no longer contingent, but cer- tain ; and worse than this : Man's will being in bondage, all the foreknowledge which God has, from His infinite insight into hu- man character, will be only a foreknowledge of obdurate acts of resistance on man's part, as long as that will is unsubdued. God's foreknowledge, in that case, would have been a fore- knowledge that every son of Adam would resist and be lost. The only foreknowledge God could have, of any cases of sub- mission, was one founded on His own decisive purpose to make some submit, by invincible grace.

The Arminian objects again, that our doctrine represents

man as dragged reluctating into a state of

whereas, freedom of will, and hearty concur- rence are essential elements of all service acceptable to God. The answer is, that the sinner's will is the very subject of this invincible grace. God so renews it that it neither can resist, nor longer wishes to resist. But this objection virtually reap- pears in the next part of the question.

Calvinists are accustomed also to say, in opposition to all

^, ^ , ^ . . synergistic views, that the will of man is not Ihe Soul Passive in ■• i , i • • ,• t

its Quickening. Proof, active, but only passive m regeneration. In

this proposition, it is only meant that man's will is the subject, and not the agent, nor one of the agents of the distinctive change. In that renovating touch, which revolu- tionizes the active powers of the soul, it is acted on and not agent. Yet, activity is the inahenable atttribute of an intelligent being; and in the process of conversion, which begins instan- taneously with regeneration, the soul is active in all its exercises towards sin, holiness, God, its Saviour, the law, &c., &c.

This doctrine is proved by the natural condition of the active powers of the soul. Man's propensities are wholly and cer- tainly directed to some form of ungodliness, and to impeniten-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 58/

cy. How, then, can the will, prompted by these propensities, persuade itself to anything spiritually good and penitent ? It is expecting a cause to operate in a direction just the opposite to its nature — as well expect gravity to raise masses flung into the air, when its nature is to bring them down. And this is agreeable to the whole Bible representation. Does the fcetus procure its own birth? the dead body its own resurrection? the matter of creation its own organization ? See, especially, John i : 13. Yet this will, thus renewed, chooses God, and acts holi- ness, freely, just as Lazarus, when resuscitated, put forth the activities of a living man.

The objections of the Arminian may all be summed up in this : that sinners are commanded, not only to put forth all the actings of the renewed nature, such as believing, turning from sin, loving God, &c., but are commanded to perform the very act of giving their hearts to God, which seems to contain the very article of regeneration. See Prov. xxiii : 26 ; Is. i : 16 ; Ezek. xviii : 31 ; Deut. x : i6.

The answer is, 1st. That God's precepts are no test of the

^, . . , extent of our ability of will, but only of our

Objection Answered, j ttt, r^ ,1 . ^ ^

■' duty. When our Creator has given to us

capacities to know and love Him, and the thing which prevents is our depraved wills, this is no reason why He should or ought to cease demanding that which is His due. If the moral oppo- sition of nature into which God's creatures may sink themselves by their own fault, were a reason why He should cease to urge His natural rights on them. He would soon have no right left. Again: the will, of man, when renovated by grace, needs a rule by which to put forth its renewed activity, just as the eye, re- lieved of its darkness by the surgeon needs light to see. Hence, we provide light for the renovated eye ; not that light alone could make the blind eye see. And hence, God applies His precepts to the renovated will, in order that it may have a law by which to act out its newly bestowed, spiritual free-agency. But 3d, and chiefly : These objections are all removed, by mak- ing a sound distinction between regeneration and conversion. In the latter the soul is active ; and the acts required by all the above passages, are the soul's (now regenerate) turning to God. The salvability of any heathen without the gospel is intro- duced here, because the question illustrates S.S„tSSh».° these views concerning the extent of the grace of redemption, and the discussions be- tween us and the Arminians. We must hold that Revelation gives us no evidence that Pagans can find salvation, without Scriptural means. They are sinners. The means in their reach appear to contain no salvation, a.) One argument is this : All of them are self-convicted of some sin (against the light of nature). " Without the shedding of blood is no remission." But the gospel is the only proposal of atonement to man. b.) Paganism

■588 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

provides nothing to meet the other great want of human nature,

an agency for moral renovation. Is any man more spiritually

minded than decent children of the Church are, because he is a

Pagan? Do they need the new birth less than our own beloved

offspring ? Then it must be at least as true of the heathen,

that except they be born again, they shall not see the kingdom.

But their religions present no agencies for regeneration. They

do not even know the Word. So far are their theologies from

any sanctifying influence, their morals are immoral, their deities

criminals, and the heaven to which they aspire a pandemonium

of sensual sin immortalized.

Now, the Arminians reject this conclusion, thinking God

„ , TT ■ . cannot iustly condemn any man, who is not

God no more Unjust ^.,-',ri , -^^/ . ,

to them than to Non- lurnisheci With sucli means 01 knowmg and

Elect under the Gos- loving Him, as put his destiny in every sense P^' within his own choice. These means the

heathen do not fully possess, where their ignorance is invincible. The principle asserted is, that God cannot justly hold any man responsible, who is not blessed with both " natural and moral ability." I answer, that our doctrine concerning the heathen puts them in the same condition with those unhappy men in Christian lands, who have the outward word, but experience no effectual calling of the Spirit. God requires the latter to obey that Law and Gospel, of which they enjoy the clearer lights; and the obstacle which ensures their failure to obey is, indeed, not any physical constraint, but an inability of will. Of the heathen, God would require no more than perfect obedience to the light of nature ; and it is the same inability of will which ■ensures their failure to do this. Hence, as you see, the doc- trine of a common sufficient grace, and of the salvability of the heathens, are parts of the same system. So, the consistent Calvinist is able to justify God in the condemnation of adult heathens, according to the principles of Paul. Rom. ii : 12. On the awful question, whether all heathens, except those to whom the Church carries the gospel, are certainly lost, it does not become us to speak. One thing is certain : that "there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts iv : 12. Guilt must be expiated ; and depravity must be cleansed, before the Pagan (or the nominal Christian) can see God. Whether God makes Christ savingly known to some, by means unknown to the Church, we need not determine. We are sure that the soul which "feels after Him if haply he may find Him," will not be cast off of God, because it happens to be outside of Christendom. But are there such ? This question it is not ours to answer. We only know, that God in the Scriptures always enjoins on His Church that energy and effort in spreading the gospel, which would be appropriate, were there no other instrumentality but ours. Here is the meas- ure of our duty concerning foreign missions.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. John 1:9

SYLLABUS

1. Are God's decrees of personal election conditional or unconditional ? Turretin, Loc. iv, Qu. 3, § 1-7. Qu. 11. ^ 10-24. Loc. xv, Qu. 2, 3. Hill, bk, iv, ch. 7, 10. Dick, Lect. 35. Knapp, Chr. Theol., § 32. and Note. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 26.

2. Show the relations between the orthodox views of effectual calling and elec- tion, and the true theory of the will and free-agency, (a). That the natural will is certainly detennined to carnality, and yet free-agency exists therein, (b). That the renewed will, after it is sovereignly renewed to godliness, and efficaciously preserved therein, is yet more free : And therefore, responsibility exists in both states.

See Lect. 11. above on the Will. Turrettin, Loc. x, Qu. 4. Southern Presbn. Rev., Oct. 1876, July and Oct., 1877. Articles on Theory of Vohtion. Alexander's " Moral Science," chs. 16 to 18. Hill, bk. iv. ch. 9, ^ 3. Edwards on the Will, pt. i, ch. 3, and pt. iii. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 28, g 3. Anselm. Ctir Dens Hotno., pt. i, ch. 24.

' I "*HE favourite Arminian dogma, that God's will concerning the salvation of individuals is conditioned on His simple

I. Conditional De- foresight of their improvement of their com- crees are Imphed in mon grace, in genuine faith, repentance, and Synergism. holy obedience, is necessary to the coherency

of their system. If grace is invincible, and all true faith, &c., are its fruits, then God's purpose as to working them must be absolute in this sense. If grace is only synergistic, and the sinner's free will alone decides the question of resisting it, or co-operating with it, then, of course, the sovereignty of decision, in this matter, is in the creature, and not in God ; and He must be guided in His purpose by what it is foreseen the creature will choose to do. Thus we reach, by a corollary from the Arminian doctrine of " Calling," that which in time is first, the nature of the Divine purpose about it. The student is here referred to the Lecture on the Decree. But as the sub- ject is so illustrative of the two theories of redemption, the Arminian and the orthodox, I shall not hesitate to discuss the same thing again, and to reproduce some of the same ideas.

And let me begin by reminding you of that plain distinc-

The Result May be ^ion, by the neglect of which, Arminians get Conditioned, and not all the plausibility of their view. It is one the Decree. \hmg to Say that, in the Divine will, the

result purposed is conditioned on the presence of its means ; another thing to say that, God's purpose about it is also con- ditioned or dependent on the presence of its means. The former is true, the latter false. And this, because the presence of the means is itself efficaciously included in this same Divine purpose. Thus, a believer's salvation is doubtless dependent 589

590 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

on his repentance ; in the sense that, if he does not repent, he will not be saved. But God's purpose to save him is not de- pendent on his choosing to repent ; for one of the things which God's purpose efficaciously determines is, that this believer shall have grace to repent. Remember, also, that when we say God's election is not dependent on the believer's fore- seen faith, &c., we do not represent the Divine purpose as a motiveless caprice. It is a resolve founded most rationally, doubtless, on the best of reasons — only, the superior faith and penitence of that man were not, a priori among them ; because had not God already determined, from some better reasons unknown to us, that man would never have had any faith or repentance to foresee. And this is a perfect demonstration, as well as a Scriptural one. The Arminian opinion makes an effect the cause of its own cause. And that our faith, &c., are effects of our calhng and election, see Rom. viii : 29 ; Eph. i : 4, 5 ; 2 Thes. ii : 13 ; i Cor. iv : 7; Jno. xv : 16.

(b). But to this I may add the same idea in substance, Providence Makes )!^^^^^^ ^ "sed_ against Common Sufficient Sovereign Distinctions Grace : That, in fact, differences are made, in Men's Outward Op- Jn the temperaments and characters, oppor- portunities. Especially . •,• j • -i r • i- • 1 , 1

of Infants, tunities and privileges 01 individuals and

nations, which practically result in the death of some in sin. Thus : what practical opportunity, humanly speaking, had the man born in Tahiti, in the i8th century, for redemption through Christ ? Now the Arminian himself admits an election of races or nations to such privilege, which is sov- ereign. Does not this imply a similar disposal of the fate of individuals ? Can an infinite understanding fail to comprehend the individuals, in disposing of the destiny of the mass? But, under this head especially, I remark : the time of every man's death is decided by a sovereign Providence. But by deter- mining this sovereignly, God very often practically decides the man's eternal destiny. Much more obvious is this, in the case of infants. According to Arminians, all that die in infancy are saved. So, then, God's purpose to end their mortal life in infancy is His purpose to save them. But this purpose cannot be formed from any foresight of their faith or repentance ; be- cause they have none to foresee, being saved without them.

(c). God's foresight of believers' faith and repentance im-

-- „ ^ . , plies the certainty, or " moral necessity " of

If Foreseen, Faith i, , . , ■" , .^ ,

Must be Certain. tiiese acts, just as much as a sovereign de-

cree. For that which is certainly foreseen must be certain. The only evasion from this is the absurdity of Adam Clarke, that God chooses not to foreknow certain things, or the impiety of the Socinians, that He cannot fore- know some things. On both, we may remark, that if this faith and repentance are not actually foreknown, they cannot be the bases of any resolve on God's part.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 59I

(d) That any purposes of God should depend on the acts of a creature having an indeterminate, contingent CannrbfcondhS will, such ES the Arminian describes, is on a Mutable Cause, incompatible with their immutability and Scripture. eternity. But all His decrees are such. See

Ps. xxxiii : ii; 2 Tim. ii : 19; Eph. i : 4: Is. xlvi : 10. In a word, this doctrine places the sovereignty in the creature, instead of God, and makes Him wait on His own servant. It is disparaging to God.

Last : This very purpose of individual election to salva- tion is often declared to be uncaused by any foreseen good in us. See Matt, xi : 26: Rom. ix: 11-16: xi : 5, 6, etc.

But Arminians cite many passages, in which they assert, Texts Seemin.iT t o God's resolve as to what He shall do to men Express a Conditioned is conditioned on their good or bad conduct. Purpose. They are such as i Sam. xiii : 13 ; Ps. Ixxxi :

13, 14: Luke vii: 30; Ezek. xviii : 21, etc.; Luke xix : 42. Our opponents here make an obvious confusion of things, which should be distinguished. When God preceptively reveals a connection between two alternative lines of conduct, and their respective results, as established by His law or promise, he does not at all reveal anything thereby, as to what He purposes with reference to permitting or procuring the exercise of that conduct by man. Of course, it does not imply that His purpose on this point is contingent to Him, or that the consequent results were uncertain to Him. We have seen that many of the results decreed by God were dependent on means which man employed ; but that God's resolve was not dependent, because it secretly embraced their performance of those instrumental acts also. But the proof that the Arminians misconstrue those Scripture instances, is this : That the Bible itself contains many instances of these conditional threats and promises, and expressions of compassion, where yet the result of them is expressly foretold. If expressly predicted, they must have been predetermined. See, then. Is. i : 19, 20, compared with vii: 17-20. And, more striking yet. Acts xxvii : 23-25, with 31.

Rom. ix : 11-18, is absolutely conclusive against condi-

. tional election. The only evasion by which

from Rom. ch.llTf n. ^^^ Arminian can escape its force, is, that this passage teaches only a national election of Israel and Edom, represented in their patriarchs, Jacob and Esau, to the outward privileges of the Gospel. We reply, as before, that Jacob and Esau certainly represented themselves also, so that here are two cases of unconditional predestination. But Paul's scope shows that the idea is false : for that scope is to explain, how, on his doctrine of justification by grace, many members of Israel were lost, notwithstanding equal outward privileges. And in answering this question, the Apostle evi- dently dismisses the corporate or collective, in order to consider

592 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the individual relation to God's plan and purpose. See the verses 8, 15, 24. That the election was not merely to privilege, is clearly proved by the allusion of verse 8, compared with verses 4, 21, 24.

2. I am now to show that the Calvinistic scheme is con- sistent, and the Arminian inconsistent, with

Calvinistic V i e w ^he philosophical theory of the will and free- Arreeable to the Irue ^ t ^ r -r

Nature of the Will. agency. Let me here refer you to Lecture

xi, where the true doctrine of the will is stated and defended, and request you, if your mastery of the views there given is not perfect, to return and make it so, before proceeding. While I shall not repeat the arguments,, the definition of the true doctrine is so important (and has" so often been imperfectly made by Calvinists), that I shall take the liberty to restate it.

The Arminian says that free-agency consists in the self-

Th f 1 determining power of the will, as a distinct

Will Stated.^*^ ° ^^ faculty in the soul. The Calvinist says, it

consists in the self-determining power of the soul. An Arminian says an agent is only free, when he has- power to choose as the will may determine itself either way, irrespective of the stronger motive. The Calvinist says that an agent is free, when he has power to act as his own will chooses. The Arminian says that in order to be free, the agent must be exempt from the efficient influence of his own motives ; the Calvinist, that he must be exempt from co-action, or external constraint; The Arminian says, that in order to be free, the agent must always be capable of having a volition uncaused. The Calvinist says that if an agent has a volition uncaused, he cannot possibly be free therein, because that vohtion would be wholly irrational ; the agent would therein be simply a brute. Every free, rational, responsible volition is such, precisely because it is caused i. e. by the agent's own motives; the rational agent is morally judged for his volitions according to their motives, or causes.

But when we ask : What is the motive of a rational voli- . J . ^ tion, we must make that distinction which all

Arminians, and many Calvinists heedlessly overlook between motive and inducement. The object offered to the soul as an inducement to choose is not the cause, the motive of the choice ; but only the occasion. The true effi- cient cause is something of the soul's own, something subjective; namely, the soul's own appetency according to his prevalent, subjective disposition. The volition is not efficaciously caused by the inducement or object which appeals, but by the dispo- sition which is appealed to. Thus, the causative spring of a free agent's action is within, not without him ; according to the testimony of our consciousness. (The theory which makes the objective inducement the true cause of volition, is from that old^

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 593

mischievous, sensualistic psychology, which has always been such a curse to theology). But then, this inward or subjective spring of action is not lawless ; it is not indeterminate ; if it were, the agent would have neither rationality nor character; and its action would be absolutely blind and brutish. This sub- jective spring has a law of its own activity — that is to say, its self-action is o-f a determinate character (of one sort or another). And that character is what is meant by the radical habitus, or natural disposition of the agent. And this subjective disposi- tion is what gives uniform quality to that series of acts, by which common sense estimates the character of an agent. (And this, as we saw, was a sufficient proof of our doctrine ; that otherwise, the exhibition of determinate character by a free agent, would be impossible). God is an excellent Agent, because He has holy origmal disposition. Satan is a wicked agent, because he has an unholy disposition, etc.

Now, this liabiUis or disposition of soul is not by any means always absolutely simple ; it is a com- Disposition What? ^^^^ ^^ cQx\^:m active principles, with mental habitudes proceeding therefrom, and modified by outward cir- cumstances. With reference to some sorts of outward induce- ments, these active principles may act with less uniformity and determinateness ; with reference to others, with more. Here, modifying outward influences may change the direction of the principles. The avaricious man is sometimes prompted to gen- erous volitions, for instance. But our common sense recog- nizes this truth : that the more, original and primary of those active principles constituting a being's disposition or habitus, are perfectly determinate and uniform in their action. For instance : no being, when happiness and suffering are the alter- natives, is ever prompted by his own disposition, to choose the suffering for its own sake ; no being is ever prompted, applause or reproach being equally in its reach, to prefer the reproach to the applause for its own sake. And last : this disposition, while never the effect of specific acts of volition (being always a priori thereto, and cause of them) is spontaneous ; that is, in exercis- ing the disposition, both in consideration and choice, the being is self-prompted. When arguing against the Pelagian sophism, that man could not be responsible for his disposition, because it is" involuntary," I showed you the ambiguity wrapped up in that word. Of course, anything which, like disposition, pre- cedes volition, cannot be voluntary in the sense of proceeding out of a volition ; what goes before of course does not follow after the same thing. But the question is, " whether disposition is self-prompted." There is a true sense in which we intui- tively know that a man ought not to be made responsible for what is "involuntar}^," viz.: for what happens against his will. But does any man's own disposition subsist against his will ? If it did it would not be his own. There is here a fact of com- 38*

594 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

mon sense, which is very strangely overlooked ; that a man may most freely prefer what is natural to him, and in that sense his prior to his volition choosing it. Let a simple instance serve. Here is a young gentleman to whom nature has given beautiful and silky black hair. He, himself, thinks it very pretty, and altogether prefers it. Does he not thereby give us as clear, and as free an expression of his taste in hair, as though he had selected a black wig? So, were he to purchase hair dye to change his comely locks to a " carroty red,/ we should regard hirn as evincing, ver}^ bad taste.. But I ask, if we saw another whom nature had endowed with " carroty red hair," glorying in it with pride and preference, we should doubtless esteem him guilty of precisely the same bad taste, and precisely as free therein as the other. But the colour of his hair was determined by nature, not by his original selection. Now, my question is : must we not judge the moral preference just as free in the paral- lel case, as the aesthetic ? I presume that every reflecting mind will give an affirmative answer. If, for instance, a wicked man made you the victim of his extortion, or his malice, you would not think it any palliation to be told by him that he was naturally covetous or malignant, nor would you be satisfied by the plea, that this evil disposition was not at first introduced into his soul by his personal act of soul ; while yet he confessed that he was entirely content with it and cherished it with a thorough preference. In fine : whether the moral agent is free in entertaining his connate disposition, may be determined by a very plain test. Does any other agent compel him to feel it, or does he feel it of himself? The obvious answer discloses this fact ; that disposition is the most intimate function of our self-hood, and this, whether connate or self-induced.

Is not this now the psychology of common sense and This Theory Obvi- consciousness ? Its mere statement is sufii- ous. Calvinism in ciently evincive of its truth. But you have Harmony with it. seen a number of arguments by which it is

demonstrated, and the rival theory reduced to absurdity. Now, our assertion is, that the Calvinistic doctrine of effectual caUing is agreeable to these facts of our free-agency, and the Arminian inconsistent with them.

(a.) First, the equilibrium of will, to which Arminians sup-

^ ^ r. pose the gospel restores all sinners, through

Grace Cannot Pro- ^ rr^ ■ ^ 111 ..

duce an Equilibrium common sumcicnt gracc, would be an unnat-

between Holiness and ural and absurd State of soul, if it existed. ^'"- You will remember that the Wesleyans (the

Arminian school which we meet) admit that man lost equilib- rium of will in the fall ; but say that it is restored through Christ ; and that this state is necessary to make man truly free and responsible in choosing the Saviour. But we have shown that such a state is impossible for an active agent, and irra- tional. So far as it existed, it would only show the creature's

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 595

action irrational, like that of the beasts. Hence, the evangel- ical choice arising in such a state would be as motiveless, as reasonless, and therefore, as devoid of right moral character, as the act of a man walking in his sleep. And, to retort the Armin- ian's favourite conclusion, all the so-called gracious states of penitence, &c., growing out of that choice, must be devoid of right moral quality, how can those exercises of soul have that quality ? Only as they are voluntary, and prompted by right moral motives. But as we have seen, motive is subjective; so that the action of soul cannot acquire right moral quality until it is prompted by right moral disposition. Hence, if that common sufficient grace were anything at all, it would be the grace of moral renovation ; all who had it would be regenerate.

(b.) Second : We have seen that the notionof a moralagent

The Natural Will without determinate, subjective moral char- Decisively Bent to acter, of some sort, is absurd. The radical, Carnality. ruling habiUis has some decisive bent of its

own, some way or other. Is not this simply to say that dispo- sition is disposed ? The question of fact then arises, which is the bent or determinate direction, which man's natural disposi- tion has, touching spiritual things ? Is it for, or against ? Or, as a question of fact, is the disposition of mankind naturally, and uniformly either way? Or, are some men one way dis- posed by nature, and some the other, as to this object? The answer is, that they are all naturally disposed, in the main, the same way, and that, against the spiritual claims of Christ and God. What are these claims ? That the sinner shall choose the holy will of God over his own, and His favour over sensual, earthly, and sinful joys in all their forms. Nothing less than this is evangelical repentance and obedience. Now note, we do not say that no men ever choose any formal act of obedi- ence by nature. Nor, that no man ever desires (what he con- ceives to be) future blessedness by nature. Nor, that every natural man is as much bent on all forms of rebellion, as every other. But we assert, as a matter of fact, that all naturally pre- fer self-will to God's holy will, and earthly, sensual, and sinful joys (in some forms) to God's favour and communion ; that this is the original, fundamental, spontaneous disposition of all ; and that in all essential alternatives between self and God, the dis- position is, in the natural man, absolutely determinate and cer- tain. If this is true, then the unconverted man without sov- ereign grace is equally certain to choose carnally, and equally a free agent in choosing so.

But that such is the determinate disposition of every nat-

Provedby Con- ural man, is obvious both from experience sciousness and Exper- and from Scripture. Every renewed man, ^^"'^^' in reviewing his own purposes, is conscious

that, before regeneration, self-will was, as against God, abso-

50 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

lutely dominant in all his feelings and purposes; of which no stronger test can be imagined than this conscious fact ; that the very best religious impulses to which his soul could be spurred by remorse or alarm, were but modifications of self-will, (self- righteousness.) Every true Christian looks back to the time when he vras absolutely incompetent to find, or even to imag- ine, any spontaneous good or joy in anything except carnality; and the only apprehension it was possible for him to have of God's service, in looking forward to the time when, he sup- posed, the fear of hell would compel him to undertake it, was of a constraint and a sacrifice. So, when we look w^ithout, while we see a good many in the state of nature, partially practising many secular virtues, and even rendering to God some self- righteous regards, we see none preferring God's will and favour to self-will and earth. All regard such a choice as an evil per se\ all shrink from it obstinately; all do so under induce- ments to embrace it which reasonably ought to be immense and ovenvhelming. The experimental evidence, that this carnality is the original and determinate law of their disposition, is as complete as that which shows the desire of happiness is a law of their disposition. And all this remains true of sinners under the gospel, of sinners enlightened, of sinners convicted and awakened by the Holy Ghost in His common operations ; which is a complete, practical proof that there is not any such- sufficient grace, common to all, as brings their wills into equi- librium about evangelical good. For those are just the ele- ments which the Arminians name, as making up that grace i and we see that where they are, still there is no equilib- rium, but the old, spontaneous, native bent, obstinately dom- inant still.

The decisiveness of that disposition is also asserted in

Scripture in the strongest possible terms.

Proved by Scripture. ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^j^^ . servants of sin," Jno. viii :

34 ; Rom. vi : 20 ; 2 Pet. ii : 19. They are "sold under sin." Rom. vii : 14. They are " in the bond of iniquity." Acts viii : 23. They are " dead in sins." Eph. ii : i. They are "blind;" yea, "blindness" itself Eph. iv .: 18. Their "hearts are stony." Ezek. xxxvi : 26. They are " impotent " for evan- gelical good. 2 Cor. iii : 5 ; Jno. xv : 5 ; Rom. v : 6 ; Matt, vii : 18 ; xii : 34 ; Jno. vi : 44. "The carnal mind is enmity, and cannot be subject to the law of God." Rom. viii : 7. Surely these, with the multitude of similar testimonies, are enough to prove against all ingenious glosses, that our view of man's disposition is true. But if man's free-agency is misdi- rected by such active principles as these, original, uniform, absolutely decisive, it is folly to suppose that the mighty revo- lution to holiness can originate in that free-agency; it must originate without, in almighty grace.

Nor is it hard for the mind which has comprehended this-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 59/

philosophy of common sense and experience, SuJaJede^e'ronsilit;. to solve the current Arminian objection ; that the man in such a state of will cannot be re- sponsible or blameworthy for his continued impenitency. This " inability of will " does not supersede either free-agency or responsibility.

There is here an obvious distinction from that external

coaction, which the reason and conscience of

Inability Defined. ^^^^^ ^^^ recognizes as a different state,

which would supersede responsibility. The Calvinists of the school of Jonathan Edwards make frequent use of the terms, " moral inability," " natural inability," to express that plain, old distinction. Turrettin teaches us that they are not new. In his Locus, X, que. 4, § 39, 40, you will find some very sensible remarks, which shov/ that this pair of terms is utterly ambigu- ous and inappropriate, however good the meaning of the Calvin- ists who used them. I never employ them. That state which they attempt to describe as " moral inability," our Confession more accurately calls, loss of aU " ability of wih." (Ch. ix : § 3). It should be remarked here, that in this phrase, and in many similar ones of our Confession, the word " will " is used in a sense more comprehensive than the specific faculty of choosing. It means the " conative powers," (so called by Hamilton,) including with that specific function, the whole active power of soul. The " inability," then, which we impute to the natural man, and which does not supersede responsibility, while it does make his voluntary continuance in impenitence absolutely certain, and his turning of himself to true holiness impossible, is a very distinct thing from that physical coaction, and that natural lack of essential faculties, either of which would be inconsistent with moral obligation. It is thus defined in Hodge's outlines : "Ability consists in the power of the agent to change his own subjective state, to make himself pre- fer what he does not prefer, and to act in a given case in oppo- sition to the co-existent desires and preferences of the agent's own heart." I will close with a statement of the distinction, which I uttered under very responsible circumstances. "All intelligent Calvinists understand very well, that " inability" con- sists not in the extinction of any of the powers which consti- tuted man the creature he was before Adam's fall, and which made his essence as a religious being ; but in the thorough moral perversion of them all. The soul's essence is not de- stroyed by the fall ; if it were, in any part, man's responsibility would be to that extent modified. But all his faculties and sus- ceptibilities now have a decisive and uniform, a native and uni- versal, a perpetual and total moral perversion, by reason of the utter revolt of his will from God and holiness, to self-will and sin ; such that it is impossible for him, in his own free will, to choose spiritual good for its own sake."

59^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

(c) Regeneration, correspondingly, does not constrain a Regeneration does 3- ^^.n to will against his dispositions ; but it not Violate, but Per- renews the dispositions themselves. It re- fects Free-agency, verses the morbid and perverse bias of the will. It rectifies the action of all faculties and affections, previously perverted by that bias. God's people are " willing in the day of His power." Ps. ex : 3. " He worketh in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Phil, ii : 13. In that believers now form holy volitions at the prompting of their own subjective principles, unconstrained by force, they are pre- cisely as free as when, before, they spontaneously formed sinful volitions at the prompting of their opposite evil principles. But in that the action of intellect and desire and conscience is now rectified, purified, ennobled, by the divine renovation, the be- liever is more free than he was before. " He cannot sin, because the living and incorruptible seed" of which he is born again "liveth and abideth in him." Thus, regeneration, though almighty, does not infringe free-agency, but perfects it.

The standing Arminian objection is, that man cannot be -^, . ,. e , J praise- or blame-worthy, for what does not

Objection Solved. '■ , ^ , . -^' .,, ^.^ ...

proceed from his own free-will. Hence, if he does not primarily choose a new heart, but it is wrought in him by another, he has no more moral credit, either for the change or its consequences, than for the native colour of his hair. This objection is, as you have seen, of a Pelagian source. By the same argument Adam could have had no concreated righteous- ness ; but we saw that»the denial of it to him was absurd. By the same reasoning God Himself could have no moral credit for His holy volitions ; for He never chose a righteousness, having been eternally and necessarily righteous. We might reply, also, that the new and holy state is chosen by the regene- rate man, for his will is as free and self-moved, when renovated, in preferring his own renovation, as it ever was in sinners.

To sum up, then : The quickening touch of the Holy This Because the ^^"^^^t operates, not to contravene any of the Spirit Moulds Disposi- free actings of the will ; but to mould dispo- tion a. priori to the sitions wliich lie back of it. Second : all the subsequent right volitions of the regenerate soul are in view of inducements rationally presented to it. The Spirit acts, not across man's nature, but according to its better law. Third : the propensities by which the renev/ed volitions are determined are now noble, not ignoble, harmonious, not confused and hostile ; and rational, not unreasonable. Man is most truly free when he has his soul most freely subjected to God's holy will. See those illustrious passages in John viii : 36 ; 2 Cor. iii : 17 ; Rom. viii : 21. Since this blessed work is like the free-agency which it reinstates, one wholly unique among the actions of God, and essentially different from alf physical effects, it cannot receive any adequate illustration.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 599

Any parallel attempted, from either material or animal causes, would be incomplete. If, for instance, I were to say- that the carnal man " in the bonds of iniquity," is like a wretch, who is hindered from walking in the paths of his duty and safety by some incubus that crushes his strength, I should use a false analogy : for the incubus is external : carnality is internal : an evil state qualifying the will itself. But this erroneous parallel may serve us so far; the fortunate subject of effectual calling has no more occasion to complain of violence done to his free- agency, than that wretch would, when a deliverer came and rolled the abhorred load off his body, restoring his limbs to the blessed freedom of motion, which might carry him away from the death that threatened him. You must learn to think of the almighty grace put forth in effectual calling, as reparative only ; not vio- lative. Augustine calls it a Delectatio victrix. It is a secret, omnipotent, silent, beneficent work of God, as gentle, yet powerful, as that which restored the vital spark to the corpse of Lazarus. Such are all God's beneficent actions, from the launching of the worlds in their orbits, to the germination of the seed in the soil.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. ix: 11-16
  2. Luke vii: 30

SYLLABUS

I. How many kinds of faith are mentioned in the Bible ? Show that temporary and saving faith differ in nature.

See, on whole, Conf. of Faith, ch. 14. Shorter Cat., Qu. 86. Larger Cat. Qu.

72. Turrettin. Loc. xv, Qu. 7, Qu. 15, ^ i-io. Ridgley, Qu. 72. Dick,

Lect. 68. Knapp, ^ 122. 2 Wliat is the immediate object of saving faith?

Turrettin, Loc. xv. Qu. 12, § 7-1 1. Dick, as above. Hill, bk. v, ch. i, near

the end. Knapp, ^ 123.

3. Is faith implicit, or intelligent ?

Turrettin, Qu. 9, 10. Knapp, § 122. Hill, bk. v, ch. i.

4. What are the elements which make up saving Faith ? Is it a duty and un- belief a sin ? Does faith precede regeneration ?

Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. 8. Hill as above, A. Fuller, " Strictures on San- deman," Letters 2, 3, 7. Alexander's Relig. Experience, ch. 6. Chalmer's Inst, of Theol. Vol. ii, ch. 6. Ridgley, Qu. 72, 73. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 23, § 3. Knapp, § 122, 124.

5. Is Christian love the formal principle of faith ?

Council of Trent, Session vi, ch. 7. Calvin, Inst., bk. iii, ch. 2, § 8 to 10. Turrettin, Qu. 13.

6. Is assurance of belief, or assurance of hope, either, or both, of the essence of saving faith ?

Council of Trent ; Can. de Justif., 12 to 16. Calvin, as above, ^ 7 to 14. Dick, as above. Turrettin, Qu. 17. Conf. of Faith, ch. 18. Ridgley, Qu. 72, 73. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 24, g ii, Dorner's Hist. Prot. Theol. Vol. i, § i, ch. 4 § a. Louis Le Blanc, Sieur de BeauUeu, Treatise on Faith, in reply to Bosquet's Variations of Popery.

7. Why is this faith suitable to be the instrument of justification ? Ridgley, Qu. 73. Turrettin, Loc. xvi, Qu. 7, § 19.

>A FTER noting those cases, as i Tim. i : 19, where Faith is

evidently used for its object, we may say that the Scrip-

I. Faith of Four tures mention four kinds — historical, tempo-

Kinds. Temporary rary, saving and miraculous. As the only

Faith not of the Kind difference among theologians in this list

01 bavmg. , .1 °. . °i ,

respects the question, whether temporary and

saving faith are generically different, we shall only enlarge on this. Arminians regard them as the same, in all except their issue. This we deny. Because: (a) The efficient cause of saving faith is effectual calling, proceeding from God's immuta- ble election. Titus i : i ; Acts xiii : 48 : that of temporary faith is the common call, (b) The subject of saving faith is a "good heart; " a regenerate soul: that of temporary faith is a stony soul. See Matt, xiii : 5, 6, with 8 ; John iii : 36, or i John v: I, with Acts viii : 13 and 23. (c) The firmness and sub- stance of the two differ essentially. Matt, xiii : 21 ; i Pet. i : 23. (d) Their objects are different : saving faith embracing Christ as He is offered in the gospel, a Saviour from sin to holiness : and temporary faith embracing only the impunity and enjoy- ments of the Christian, (e) Their results are different : the one 600

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 60I

bearing all the fruits of sanctification, comfort and persever ance ; the other bearing no fruit unto perfection. See the par able of the sower again.

The special object of saving faith is Christ the Redeemer, and the promises of grace in Him. By this,

Ob'eSof fSL^''^'^'''^ w^ ^° "°^ ""'^^^ ^^^^^ ^^y ^^^^ believer will willfully and knowingly reject any of the other propositions of God's word. For the same habit of faith, or disposition of holy assent and obedience to God's authority, which causes the embracing of gospel propositions, will cause the embracing of all others, as fast as their evidence becomes known. But we mean that, in justifying faith, Christ and His grace is the object immediately before the believer's mind ; and that if he have a saving knowledge of this, but be ignorant of all the rest of the gospel, he may still be saved by believing this. The evidences are, that the gospel is so often spoken of as the object of faith; [but this is about Christ]; e. g. Mark xvi : 15, 16 ; Eph. i : 13; Mark i : 15 ; Rom. i : 16, 17 ; e/ pas- sim. That believing on Christ is so often mentioned as the sole condition, and that, to men who must probably have been ignorant of many heads of divinity ; e. g., Acts xvi : 31 ; Jno. iii : 18 ; vi : 40 ; Rom. x : 9, &c. The same thing may be argued from the experiences of Bible saints, who represent themselves as fixing their eyes specially on Christ, i Tim. i : 15, &c., and from the two sacraments of faith, which point immediately to Jesus Christ. Still, this special faith is, in its habitus, a principle of hearty consent to all God's holy truth, as fast as it is apprehened as His. Faith embraces Christ substan- tially in all His offices. This must be urged, as of prime prac- tical importance. Dr. Owen has in one place very incautiously said, that saving faith in its first movement embraces Christ only in His priestly, or propitiatory work. This teaching is far too common, at least by implication, in our pulpits. Its result is "temporary" faith, which embraces Christ for impunity only, instead of deliverance from sin. Our Catechism defines faith, as embracing Christ " as He is offered to us in the gospel." Our Confession (chap, xiv, § 2), says : " the principle acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life." How Christ is offered to us in the gospel, may be seen in Matt, i : 21 ; I Cor. i : 30 ; Eph. v : 25-27 ; Titus, ii : 14. The tendency of human selfishness is ever to degrade Christ's sacrifice into a mere expedient for bestowing impunity. The pastor can never be too explicit in teaching that this is a travesty of the gospel ; and that no one rises above the faith of the stony-ground- hearer, until he desires and embraces Christ as a deliverer from depravity and sin, as well as hell.

The papists represent faith as an implicit exercise of the

602 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

^ ., ,, mind, in which the behever accepts the doc-

3. Faith Must be , • , , r -i- , ,

Explicit. trines, not because 01 his own clear under-

standing of their evidence, but because of the pious and submissive temper of mind towards the Church ; her authority being, to Romanists, the ground of faith. Faith accordingly may be compatible with ignorance, both of the other evidence, (besides the Church's assertion), and of the very propositions themselves ; so that a man may embrace with his faith, doctrines, when he not only does not see evidence for them, but does not know what they are ! Indeed, says Aquinas : Since dyd-r^ is the formative principle of faith, the less a man's acceptance of the Catholic doctrine proceeds from intelligence, and the more from the impulse of right dis- positions, the more praiseworthy it is. This description of faith is evidently the only one consistent with a denial of pri- vate judgment.

Protestants, on the other hand, hold that faith must be

■o c r-n ■ explicit and intelligent ; or it cannot be

Proofs of Romanists r ■,■1' . 1 . , 1 .^- 1 ,.

Invalid. proper taith — that the propositions embraced

must be known ; and the evidence therefor comprehended intelligently. They grant to Aquinas, that faith derives its moral quality from the holiness of principles and vol- untary moral dispositions actuating the exercise; but his con- clusion in favour of an unintelligent faith is absurd, because vol- untary moral dispositions can only act legitimately, through an intelligent knowledge of their objects. The right intelligence is in order to the' right feeling. Protestants-, again distinguish between a comprehension of the evidence, and a full compre- hension of the proposition. The former is the rational ground of beUef, not the latter. The affirmations of many propo- sitions, not only in theology, but in other sciences, afe ration- ally believed, because their evidences are intelligently seen, when the predications themselves are not fully or even at all comprehended. This distinction answers at once all the objec- tions made by Papists to an explicit faith, from the case of th^ Patriarch, who believed a gospel promise only vaguely stated and of us, who believe mysteries we cannot explain. Nor is i\ of any force to say, many Protestants could not give an intelli- gent view of any one sufficient argument for a given point it their creed. We grant that many professed Protestants hav(. only a spurious faith. Again: an humble mind cannot always, state in language intelligently, what he understands intelli- gently.

For an explicit faith, thus defined, we argue : i. That i'c is

.rr ,. . the only sort possible, according to the Jaws

Affirmative Argu- r,i -ia ii-

ments. oi the mind. A man cannot believe, except

by seeing evidence. As well talk of percep- tion of objects of sight occurring in one, without using one'b own eyes. But, say Papists : the Catholic's implicit faith is not thus

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 605

totally blind, but rests on the testimony of the Church. His mind, influenced by dyd-r^, has intelligently embraced this as plenary and infallible. Now, may not a man have a conviction in such case, implicit even of unknown propositions ? e. g., you Protestants have your authoritative rule of faith, your Scrip- ture. Once adopt this, and you accept its unknown contents as true ; of which there are to you some, until your study of Scripture-exegesis is exhaustive. Ans. Very true. But the Romanist has no right to resort to this case as a parallel ; because he does not permit private judgment to exercise itself in rationally weighing the proofs of the Church's authority, any more than of the Bible's authority. He cannot; because then, the individual must exercise his private judgment upon the Scripture ; the argument for the Church's authority being dependent thereon, in essential branches. 2. The Bible agrees to this, by directing us to read and understand in order to believe; to search the Scriptures. See Jno. v : 39; Rom. x : 17 ; Ps. cxix : 34 ; Prov. xvi : 22 ; Acts xxviii : 27 ; Jno. xvii : 3 ; I Cor. xi : 29 ; Jno. vi : 45. 3. We are commanded to be " able to give to every man that asketh of us, a reason of the hope that is in us." i Pet. iii : 15. And faith is everywhere spoken of as an intelligent exercise ; while religious ignorance is rebuked as sin.

But we now approach an inquiry concerning faith, on which

our own divines are more divided. Is faith or'complex? ""^ ^ ^ perfectly simple exercise of the soul, by its

single faculty of intellect ; or is it a complex act of both intellect and active moral powers, when stripped of all antecedent or consequent elements, which do not properly belong to it ? The older divines, with the confession, evidently make it a complex act of soul, consisting of an intellectual, and a voluntary element. Turrettin, indeed, discriminates seven elements in the direct and reflex actings of faith: i. Cognition ; 2. Intellectual assent ; 3. Trust ; 4. Fleeing for ref- uge ; 5. Embracing; and (reflex) 6. Self-consciousness of true actings of faith, with 7. Consolation and assurance of hope. The two latter should rather be named the ulterior conse- quences of saving faith, than a substantive part thereof. The first is rather a previous condition of faith, and the third, fourth and fifth seem to me either identical, or, at most, phases of the different actings of the will toward gospel truth. Of the old, established definition, I have seen no sounder exponent than A. Fuller. Now, Drs. A. Alexander and Chalmers, among others, teach that saving faith is nothing but a simple belief of propo- sitions ; and they seem to regard it as necessary to suppose the act as capable of being analysed into a perfectly simple one, because it is everywhere spoken of in Scripture as a single one. Dr. Alexander also argues, with great acuteness and beauty of analysis, that since the soul is an absolute unit

■604 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

always, and its faculties are not departments of it, but only dif- ferent modes it has of acting, the enlightening of the mind in regeneration and the moral renovation of will, must be one sim- ple act of the Holy Ghost and one effect, not two. And hence, there is no ground to suppose that faith, which is the first characteristic acting of the new born, and result of new birth, is complex. Moreover, he argues, since the will always follows the latest dictate of the understanding, it is unneces- sary to attribute to faith any other character than a conviction of truth in the intellect, to explain its practical effects in turn- ing the soul from sin to Christ.

Now, in examining this subject, let us remember that the re- sort must be to the Bible alone, to learn what Jl'^, ,^'c'^°? ^° ^^ it means by Tzcarc:. And this Bible was not

settled by bcnpture. . -^ ...

written for metaphysicians, but for the popu- lar mind ; and its statements about exercises of the soul are not intended to be analytical, but practical. This being admitted, and Dr. Alexander's definition of the soul and its faculties be- ing adopted as evidently the true one, it appears to me that, the fact the Scriptures every where enjoin faith as a single act of the soul (by the doing of which one exercise, without any other, the soul is brought into Christ), does not at all prove it may not be a complex act, performed by the soul through two of its modes of action. Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Alexander, and every other divine often speak of acts as single, which they would yet analyse into two elements, and those not of the same fac- ulties; e. g., the exercise of repentance or moral approval by. the soul, consisting (in some order) of a judgment and an emotion.

In explaining the defect of the other argument of Dr. Alex- The Heart Guides ^f^der, I would remind the student of the dis- the Head in Moral tinctions made in defending the doctrine of ^^°'^^- the immediate agency of the Spirit of regen-

eration. True, the regenerating touch which enlightens the un- derstanding and renews the will, is one, and not two, separate, or successive exertions of power. True, the will does follow the last dictate of the understanding, on all subjects. But let us go one step farther back : How comes the understanding by its notions, in those cases where the subjects thereof are the ob- jects of its natural active propensities? As we showed, in all these cases, the notion or opinion of the understanding is but the echo and the result of the taste or preference of the propen- sity. Therefore, the change of opinion can only be brought about by changing the taste or preference. Now, inasmuch as all the leading gospel truths are objects of native and immedi- ate moral propensity, the renovation of those propensities procures the enlightening of the understanding, rather than the contrary. So in faith, the distinctive exercise of the renewed soul (renewed as a soul, and not only as one faculty

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 605.

thereof,) it is more correct to regard the element of active moral propensity (now towards Christ and away from sin) as source, and the new state of opinion concerning gospel truth, as result. But now, the understanding apprehends these objects of natural moral propensity, according to truth, because of the correct actings of the propensity towards them; and according to the soul's customary law, this apprehension according to truth, is followed by right volitions : the first of which, the embracing of Christ for salvation, is in the Scriptural, practical account of faith, included as a part of the com- plete act. If that which the Bible represents as a sin- gle, may yet be a complex act of the soul, exerting itself in two- capacities (which I have proved), then it is no argument to say the embracing of Christ by the will is no part of saving faith proper, but only a consequence ; because it is a natural conse- quence of the law that the will follows the last dictate of the mind. Grant it. Yet why may not that very act of will, thus- produced, be the very thing the Bible means by saving faith ? (According to the Confession.) Then, to settle this, let us resort to the Bible itself. Be it remembered that, having distinguished the two elements of belief and embracing, it is simply a ques- tion of fact, whether the Scriptures mean to include the latter as- a part of that exercise, by which the sinner is justified ; or a re- sult of it. Then,

1. The very object proposed to faith implies that it must be The Object of Faith ^^^ ^^^ ^s well'as a notion : for that object is^

not an Opinion, but a not merely truth but good, both natural and ^°°^- moral good. We often determine the char-

acter of the soul's actings by that of their object. Now, the exercise provoked or occasioned by an object of appetency, must be active. Here, we may remark, there is strong evidence for our view in this, that the Scriptures often speak of faith as~ trust. See Ps. ii : 12; xvii : y \ et passim ; Matt, xii : 21; Eph. i : 12, &c. Chalmers most strangely remarks, that still faith does not seem to be anything more than simple belief; because when we analyse trust in a promise, we find it to consist of a belief in a proposition accompanied by appetency for the good- propounded ; and the belief is but belief. I reply yes ; but the trust is not mere belief only. Our argument is in the fact that the Scriptures say faith is trust, and trust is faith. Chalmers' is a strangely bald sophism.

2. The Scriptures describe faith by almost every imagina-

able active figure. It is a " looking," (Is. xlv : in Sci^ur'' ^''" 22,) a "receiving," (Jno. i : 12, 13,) an " eat-

ing " of Him, (Jno. vi : 54,) a " coming," (Jno. V : 40,) an " embracing," (Heb. xi : 13,) a "fleeing unto, and laying hold of," (Heb. vi : 18,) &c. Here it may be added, that every one of the illustrations of faith in Heb. xi (whose- first verse some quote as against me) come up to the Apostle's^

6o6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

description in the 13th verse, containing an active element of trust and choice, as well as the mental one of belief.

3. The manner in which faith and repentance are coupled together in Scripture plainly shows that, as faith is implicitly present in repentance, so repentance is implicitly in faith. But if so, this gives to faith an active character. Mark 1:15; Matt. xxi : 32 ; 2 Tim. ii : 25.

4. The Scriptures represent faith, not only as a privilege,

but a duty, and unbelief as a sin. i Jno. iii : Unbelief a Sm. ^3 ; Jno. xvi : 9. Now, it seems clear that

nothing is a sin, in which there is no voluntary element. The mere notion of the understanding arises upon the sight of evi- dence involuntary ; and there is no moral desert or ill-desert about it, any more than in being hurt when hit. And the reason why we are responsible for our belief on moral subjects is, that there is always an active, or voluntary element, about such be- lief. The nature thereof is explained by what has been said above on the order of causation between our disposition or pro- pensities, and our opinions concerning their objects.

5. If we make faith nothing but simple belief, we are una-

ble to give a satisfactory account of the dif- H^toiical Faith Dif- fgj-gj^^e between historical and saving faith.

Chalmers, in the summary of his 6th chapter, as good as acknowledges this. But surely that must be a de- fective theory, which makes it impossible to see a difference, where yet, it admits, a substantial difference exists ! Some would get out of the difficulty by denying that, in strictness of speech, there is any historical faith where there is not saving faith — i. e., by denying that such persons truly believe, even with the understanding. Many candid sinners will declare that their consciousness contradicts this. Says Dr. Alexander, the historical faith does not differ in that it believes different propo- sitions ; but in that it believes them with a different and inferior grasp of conviction, I would ask, first, wiiether this statem.ent does not give countenance to that radical Arminian error, which makes saving differ from temporary faith, only in degree, and not in kind ? And I would remark, next : This is a singular de- sertion of a part of the strength of his own position, (although we believe that position includes only a part of the truth.)

It is certainly true that historical faith does not believe all

the propositions embraced by saving faith, It does not Accept ^^j. ^.j^g most important of them. Cat. que.

86. It believes, in a sense, that Christ is a Saviour, but does it believe that all its best works are sins ; that it is a helpless captive to ungodliness ; that sin is, at this time, a thing utterly undesirable in itself for that person ; and that it is, at this moment, a thing altogether to be preferred, to be sub- dued unto holiness and obedience in Jesus Christ? No, indeed ; the true creed of historical faith is : that " I am a great sinner,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 607

but not utter; that I shall initiate a rebellion against ungodliness successfully some day, when the ' convenient season ' comes, and I o-et my own consent. That the Christian's impunity and inher- itance win be a capital thing, when I dome to die ; but that at present, some form of sin and worldliness is the sweeter, and the Christian's peculiar sanctity the more repulsive, thing for me." Now, the only way to revolutionize these opinions, is to revolutionize the active, spiritual tastes, of whose verdicts they are the echo — to produce, in a word, spiritual tastes equally active in the opposite direction. We have thus shown that historical faith does not embrace the same propositions as saving ; and that the difference is not merely one of stronger mental convic- tion. But we have shown that the difference is one of con- trasted moral activities, dictating opposite opinions as to present spiritual good ; and thus procuring action of the will to em- brace that good in Christ. See also, 2 Thess. ii : 10 ; Rom. x : •9 and 10.

It is very clear,, that if this account of faith is correct, it

can only be an exercise of a regenerate

Faith the Fruit of ^ ^^ ^j^^ ^^^.^^ affections which dictate

Regeneration. i 1 1 -i

the opinions as to moral good and evil, ac- cording to truth, and thus procure action, are spiritual affections. To this agree the Scriptures, See Rom. viii : 7 ; i Cor. ii : 14 ; Eph. i : 19, 20 ; ii : 8 ; Ezek. xxxvi : 26, 27 ; Phil, i : 29 ; Gal. V : 22 ; Tit. i : i ; Heb. xii : 2. To this representation there are three objections urged :

1. "That of the Sandemanian, that by giving faith an

active and holy character, we virtually bring Objections. ^^^^ justification by human merit."

2. '' That by supposing regeneration (the very germ of redemption) bestowed on the sinner before justification, we make God reconciled to him before He is reconciled."

3. " That we tell the sinner to go to Christ by faith in order to be made holy, while yet he must be made holy in •order to go."

The answer to the 1st, is that we define faith as a holy exercise of the soul ; but we do not attribute Answers. j^^ instrumentality to justify, to its holiness,

but to the fact that it embraces Christ's justifying righteous- ness. It is neither strange nor unreasonable, that a thing should have two or more attributes, and yet be adapted by one special attribute among them, to a given instrumentality. The diamond is transparent, but it is its hardness which fits it for cutting glass. True faith is obediential : it involves the will : it has moral quality : but its receptive nature is what fits it to be the organ of our justification. Hence it does not follow that we introduce justification by our own moral merit.

To the 2d, I answer, it owes its whole plausibility to assum- ing that we make a difference in the order of time between

6o8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

regeneration and justification by faith. But we do not. In this sense, the sinner is justified when he is regenerated, and regenerated when justified. Again, God has purposes of mercy towards His elect considered as unregenerate. For were they not elected as such ? In the Covenant of Redemp- tion, Christ's vicarious engagement for them did not persuade the Father to be merciful to them. On the contrary, it only enabled His original mercy, from which the gift of Christ Him- self proceeded, to go forth compatibly with His holiness. Hence, at the application of Redemption, God justifies in the righteousness of Another, in order that He may consistently bless, with regeneration and all other graces ; and He regene- rates, in order that the sinner may be enabled to embrace that righteousness. In time they are simultaneous ; in source, both are gracious ; but in the order of production, the sinner is enabled to believe by being regenerated, not vice versa.

To the 3d, I reply, that this is but to re-affirm the sinner's inability ; which is reaj, and not God's fault, ^Smner Dependent on ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^.^^ . j^ ^^^ essential revo- lution from death to life, and curse to bless- ing, the sinner is dependent on Sovereign grace ; (it is the viru- lence of sin that make him so ;) and there is no use in trying to blink the fact. It is every way best for the sinner to find it out : for thus the thoroughness of legal conviction is completed, and self-dependence is slain. Let not the guide of souls try to palliate the inexorable fact, by telling him that he cannot regenerate himself and so adapt himself to believe ; but that he can use means, &c., &c. For if the awakened sinner is per- spicacious, he will answer, (logically), " Yes ; and all my using means and instrumentalities, you tell me, will be adding sin to sin ; for I shall use them with wholly carnal motives." If not perspicacious, he will thrust these means between himself and Christ ; and be in imminent risk of damnation by endeavouring to make a Saviour of them. No, let the pastor only reply to the anxious soul in the words of Paul, (Acts xvi : 31) " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," while he also refuses to retract the truth, that " no man cometh unto Christ, except the Father draw him." The healing of the withered arm is here a parallel. Matt, xii : 10- 1 3. Had that afflicted man possessed the spirit of this cavil, he would have objected to the command, " Stretch forth thy hand ;" that it must first be miraculously healed. But he had, instead, the spirit of faith : and He who gave the command, gave also the strength to obey. In the act of obeying he was miraculously enabled.

If the sinner recalcitrate against the gospel paradox, the triumphant answer will be : that the root of the reason why he cannot embrace Christ in his own strength is, that his own spon- taneous preference is for self-will and ungodliness. So that if

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 609

he fails in coming to Christ, why does he murmur? He has followed precisely his own secret preference, in staying away. If the minister feels responsible and anxious for the successful issue of the case entrusted thus to his tuition, let him remem- ber : (a) That after all, it is sovereign gr.ace that must regene- rate, and not the separate efficiency of any views of truth, however correct ; and that he is not responsible to God for persuading the sinner to Christ, which is God's own work ; and (b) That God does in fact make the " sinner's extremity His own opportunity;" and where we see Him thus slaying carnal self by this thorough law-work, it is because He intend^ thereby to prepare the way for His sovereign regenerating work. Let not the minister, therefore, become disbelLving, and resort to foolish, carnal expedients ; let him simply repeat the gospel condition ; and then " stand still and see the salvation of God."

This difficulty is presented in its most interesting form, by the question, whether an anxious sinner conscious of an unre- newed state, may begin to pray with an expectation of answer. Some professed Calvinists have been so embarrassed, as to give a very unscriptural answer. They have argued that " without faith it is impossible to please God;" and as faith is a result of regeneration, it is the unrenewed sinner's duty to abstain from praying, until conscious of the saving change. But Scripture commands sinners to pray. See Acts viii : 22 ; Rom. x : 13. Man's logic is vain, against God's express word. Again : it is wrong to command any one to abstain from prayer (or any other duty) because he is in a state of unbelief, because it is wrong for him to be in that state. It is preposterous reasoning, which makes a man's own sin an exemption for him. Do we then, in commanding the unbeliever to begin praying, tell him to offer an unbelieving prayer ? By no means. We intend that he shall so begin, that by God's grace that prayer, begun in the impotency of nature, shall instantly transform itself into the first breathing of a living faith. We say to him ; Begin pray- ing ; "and be no more faithless, but believing." It is most instructive to notice how Christ Himself encourages the anxious sinner to pretermit the obstacle of this seeming paradox. The parables by which He inculcates prayer are evidently constructed, with a view to encourage the awakened soul to waive the ques- tion whether it is renewed or not. In Matt, vii : 1 1, the tender- ness of parents for their hungry children is the example by which He emboldens us. But in applying it. He actuall\' breaks the symmetry of His own comparison, in order to widen the promise for the encouragement of sinners. We at first expect Him to conclude thus : " If ye then, though evil, know how to give good things to yoiir children : how much more shall your Father in heaven give His Holy Spirit to His children." But no: He concludes: "to them that ask Him;" thus graciously authorizing us to waive the question whether we have become

39'

6lO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

His children. So, in Luke xviii : 14, the parable of the publi- can shows us a man who ventured to pray in the profound and humble conviction of his unrenewed state ; and he obtained justification, while the confident profebsor of godliness was rejected. These instructions authorize the pastor to invite every sinner to the mercy-seat, provided only he is hearty in his petition ; and to direct him to the free mercy which comes " to seek and save that which is lost." Yet it is certainly true, that the prayer of abiding unbelief will not be accepted. But Prayer is God's own appointed means for giving expression to the implanted faith, and thus passing out of the unbelieving into the believing state.

Rome teaches that historical faith is the substance of sav- ing ; [fides informis ;) which becomes true DiftinSon ^°''"'"'*''' faith by receiving its form, love. (Thus fides fomiata.) Her doctrine of Justification is accordant, viz : a change of moral, as well as legal state, con- sisting not only in pardon and acceptance of person, but in the inworking of holy love in the character. Now, in this error, as in most mischievous ones, we find a certain perverted element of truth, (without which errors would not usually have life enough to be current.) For faith, as an act of the soul, has moral character ; and that character, holy. But the sophism of Rome is two-fold : (a.) Her fides informis, or historical faith, is not generically the same act of the soul at all as saving faith; being an embracing of different propositions, or at least of far different apprehensions of the gospel propositions, being the acts of different faculties of the soul ; (historical faith, char- acteristically of the head ; saving faith, essentially of the heart. Rom. X : 10;) and being prompted by different motives, so far as the former has motive. For the former is prompted by self- love, the latter by love of holiness and hatred of sin. (b.) Faith does not justify in virtue of its rightness, but in virtue of its receptivity. Whatever right moral quality it has, has no relevancy whatever to be, of itself, a justifying righteousness; and is excluded from the justifying instrumentality of faith ; Rom. iv : 4, 5 ; xi : 6. But faith justifies by its instrumentality of laying hold of Christ's righteousness, in which aspect it does 'not contribute, but receives, the moral merit. (c.) Love can- not be the " Form of faith," because they are co-ordinate graces. See I Cor. xiii : 13. Rome virtually concedes this fatal point, by pleading that love may be metaphorically the form of faith. To the modern mind a conclusive general objection remains : this Peripatetic mode of conception and definition, by matter and form, is wholly irrelevant to a spiritual exercise or function : it is only accurate when applied to concrete objects.

The solution of Rome's fiivourite proof-texts is easy ; e. g., in I Cor. xiii : 2, the faith is that of miracles. In Gal. v : 6, faith is the instrument energizing love, and not vice versa. In

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6ll

Jas. ii : 26, works (loving ones of course), are not the causes, but after-signs of faith's vitaHty, as breath is of the body's. I Cor. vi : 1 1 ; Titus iii : 5 ; Eph. i : 13 ; Luk. xv : 22. &c., refer to the sanctification following upon justification.

By assurance of faith, we mean the certain and undoubting

conviction that Christ is all He professes to

6. Asurance Dis- ^ ^^^ ^.j^ ^^ ^jj ^^ promises. It is of the

tinguished. ' ^ . ^ ^ „

essence 01 savmg laith, as all agree. bee Heb. X : 22 ; xi : 6 ; Jas. i : 6, y; i Tim. ii : 8 ; Jer. xxix : 13. And it is evident that nothing less than full conviction of the trustworthiness of the gospel would give ground to that entire trust, or envoke the hearty pursuit of Christ, which are requi- site for salvation. The assurance of grace and salvation is the assured conviction (with the peace and joy proceeding there- from) that the individual believer has had his sins pardoned, and his soul saved. Rome stoutly denies that this is a part of faith, or a legitimate reflex act, or consequence thereof, (except in the case of revealed assurance.) Her motive is, to retain anxious souls under the clutch of her priest-craft and tyranny. The Reformers generally seem to have been driven by their hatred of this odious doctrine, to the other extreme, and make assurance of hope of the essence of faith. Thus, Calvin says, in substance : ■" My faith is a divine and spiritual belief that God has pardoned and accepted me." The sober view of the moderns (see Conf., ch. 18) is, that this assurance is the natural and proper reflex act, or consequence of true faith, and should usually follow, through self-examination and experience ; but that iLis not ut theessence of faith, ist. Because, then, another proposition would be the object of faith. Not whosoever believeth shall be saved ; but " I am saved." The latter is a deduction, in which the former is miajor premise. 2d. The humble and modest soul would be inextricably embarrassed in coming to Christ. It would say: " I must believe that I am saved, in order to be saved. But I feel myself a lost sinner, in need of salvation. 3rd. God could not justly punish the non- elect for not believing what would not have been true if they had believed it. 4th. The experience of God's people in all ages contradicts it. Ps. Ixxiii : 13 ; xxxi : 22 ; Ixxvii ; 2, 9, 10. 5th, The command to go on to the attainment of assurance, as a higher grace, addressed to believers, shows that a true believer may lack it.

God has chosen faith for the peculiar, organic function of

instrumentally uniting the soul to Christ, gaLuusrificatio^^^" ^^ as to partake of His righteousness and

spiritual life. Why ? This question should be answered with modesty. One reason, we may sup- pose, is, that human glorying may be extinguished by attach- ing man's whole salvation instrumentally to an act of the soul, whose organic aspect is merely receptive, and has no procur-

6t2 syllabus and notes

ing righteousness whatever. Rom. iii : 27. Another reason is, that behef is, throughout all the acts of the soul, the preliminary and condition of acting. See i Jno. v : 4, 5. Everything man does is because he believes something. Faith, in its widest sense, is the mainspring of man's whole activity. Every voli- tion arises from a belief, and none can arise without it. Hence, in selecting faith, instead of some other gracious exercise, which may be the fruit of regeneration, as the organic instrument of justification, God has proceeded on a profound knowledge of man's nature, and in strict conformity thereto. A third reason may perhaps be found in the fact that faith works by love : that it purifies the soul ; and is the victory which overcomes worldli- ness. See Confesson of Faith, ch. xiv : § ii, especially its first propositions. Since faith is the principle of sanctification, in a sinner's heart, it was eminently worthy of a God of holiness, to select it as a term of justification.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Mark 1:15

SYLLABUS

1. By what similitudes is the union of Christ with His people set forth in the Scripture ?

2. \Vliat are the several results to behevers, of this union ?

3. \Vhat is the essential, and what the instrumental bond of this union ?

4. Show the resemblances and differences between this union and tliat of the Father and the Son ; between this and that of Christ's divinity and humanity ; between this and that of a leader and his followers ?

5. Does this union imply a literal conjunction of the substance of Christ with that of the behever's soul ?

6. How does the indwelhng of the Holy Ghost in this union, differ from that by which it is everywhere present ?

7. Is this union indissoluble ?

See on whole, Dick, Lect. 67. Ridgley, Vol. iii, Qu. 66. Calvin's Inst., bk. iii, ch. I. Hill, bk. v, ch. 5, § i. Conf. of Faith, ch. 26. Hodge, Theol. Vol. iii, pp. 650-661.

TT is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner's soul. Although

all the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth EffectVatTsd^vaSni^' bodily in Him since His glorification yet

until the union of Christ is effected, the believer partakes of none to its completeness. When made one with His Redeeming Head, then all the communicable graces of that Head begin to transfer themselves to him. Thus we find that each kind of benefit which makes up redemp- tion IS, in different parts of the Scripture, deduced from this union as their source ; justification, spiritual strength, life, res- urrection of the body, good works, prayer and praise, sanctifi-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 613

cation, perseverance, &c., &c. Eph. i: 4, 6, 11, 13; Col. i : 24; Rom. vi : 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 ; Col. ii: 10; Gal. ii : 20; Phil, iii : 9; Jno. XV : 1-5.

The nature of this union is to be deduced from a full com- parison of all the similitudes by which the Described by Im- ^^^^ illustrates it. In one place it is ages. . r

described by the union of a vine with its

branches ; and in another, of the stock of an olive tree with its limbs. Jno. xv : 1-5 ; Rom. xi : 16-24. The stock is Christ, diffusing life and fructifying sap through all the branches. Second ; Our Saviour briefly likens this union to that between Himself and His Father. Jno. xvii : 20, 21. Grace will bring the whole body of the elect into a sweet accord with Christ and each other, and harmony of interest and volition, bearing some small relation to that of the Father and the Son. Third : We find the union compared by Paul to that between the head and the members in the body ; the head, Christ, being the seat and source of vitality and volition, as well as of sense and intel- ligence ; the members being united to it by a common set of nerves, and community of feeling, and life, and motion. Eph. iv : 15, 16. Fourth : We find the union likened to that between husband and wife : where by the indissoluble and sacred tie, they are constituted one legal person, the husband being the ruler, but both united by a tender affection and complete com- munity of interest, and of legal obligations. Eph. v : 31, 32; Ps. xlv : 9. Fifth : It is illustrated by the union of the stones in a house to their foundation corner-stone, where the latter sustains all the rest, and they are cemented to it and to each other, forming one whole. But stones are inanimate ; and therefore the sacred writer indicates that the simile is, in its nature, inadequate to express the whole truth, by describing the corner-stone as a living thing, and the other stones as living things together composing a spiritual temple. See i Cor. iii : 1 1-16 ; i Pet. ii : 4-6.

Now, these are all professed similes or metaphors ; yet they must indicate, when reduced to literal language, an ^exceedingly close and important union. It is hard to see how human language could be more completely exhausted, to ex- press this idea, without running it into identity of substance ■ or person. Its nature may be best unfolded by looking suc- ■cessively at its results, conditions, &c. Let it be again noted, that our union to Christ bears to all the several benefits which effectuate our redemption, the relation of whole to its parts.

The results of this union may be said to be threefold ; or,

in different language, it may be said that the

2. Why Called Mys- • • ^ • ^.t r "^ , *. a t i

tical? Three Results union exists m three lorms. 1st. A Legal

union, in virtue of which Christ's righteous- ness is made ours, and we " are accepted in the beloved." .'See Rom. viii : i ; Phil, iii : 9. This is justification. 2d. A

6 14 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Spiritual, or mystical union, by which we participate in spiritual influences and qualities of our Head Jesus Christ ; and have wrought in us, by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which was given to Him without measure, spiritual life, with all its result- ant qualities and actings. See Jno. v : 25, 26; xv : 2-5 ; Eph. ii : 5 ; Rom. vi : 1 1 ; 2 Cor. v : 17 ; Gal. ii : 20. This union the orthodox divines have called mystical, [wjazr/.a), borrowing the expression, niost likely, from Eph. v : 32. They did not mean thereby, that in their views of this union spiritual, they adopted the views held by the ancient and mediaeval Mystics, who taught an essential oneness of the human intelligence with the substance of the Aoyo^ to be developed by quietism and asceti- cism. Orthodox divines have rather meant thereby, what is the proper, scriptural idea of the word ijLoavrjfnov from ivjio, some- thing hidden and secret : not something incomprehensible and incapable of being intelligibly stated. The spiritual union is indeed mysterious in that sense ; but not otherwise than regen- eration is mysterious. The incomprehensible feature is not only similar, but identical ; it is one and the same mystery. But the tie is called mystical, because it is invisible to human eyes ; it is not identical with that outward or professed union, instituted by the sacraments ; it is a secret kept between the soul and its Redeemer, save as it is manifested by its fruits. The third result of the union, is the communion of saints. As the stones of the wall, overlapping the corner-stone, also over- lap each other, and are cemented all into one mass, so, every soul that is united truly to Christ, is united to His brethren. Hence, follows an identity of spirit and principle, a community of aims, and a oneness of affection and sympathy.

The essential bond of this union is the indwelling influence of the Holy Ghost. This Spirit is indeed

%. Its Instrumental • j .„ • i. • tt- „ •

and Essential Bond. immense and omnipresent ; nor is His provi- dential agency dead or inoperative in any creature of God. But in the souls of believers, He puts forth a different agency, viz.: the same which He exerts in the man Jesus Christ, by which He fills Him with all the fullness of the Godhead. Thus the bond of union is formed. The vegetative influences of the sun are on the whole surface of the earth. In many plants those influences produce a growth, wild or useless, or noxious ; but in every cultivated field, they exhibit themselves in the vegetation of the sweet and wholesome corn which is plant- ed there. In proof of this bond, see i Cor. iii : 16 ; vi : 17 : xii : 13 ; I Jno. iii : 24 : iv: 13. To return to the Bible figure of a. vine or tree, the sap which is in the branches was first in the stock, and proceeded thence to the branches. It has in them the same chemical and vital characters ; and produces every- where the same fruit. The sense and feeling of every limb are the common sense and feeling of the head. Hence we are enti- tled to take this pleasing view of all genuine, spiritual affections

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6l$

in the members of Christ ; each one is in its humble measure, the counterpart of similar spiritual affections in Christ. There are indeed some affections, e. g., those of penitence, which Christ cannot explicitly share, because He is sinless ; but even here the tide of holy affection, of enmity to all moral impurity, and love for holiness, wells from the Saviour's bosom; in pass- ing through the believer's sinful bosom it assumes the form of penitence, because modified by his personal sense of sin. Each gracious affection is a feeble reflex of the same affection, exist- ing, in its glorious perfection, in- our Redeemer's heart. As when we see a mimic sun in the pool of water on the earth's surface, we know that it is only there because the sun shineth in his strength in the heavens. How inexpressible the com- fort and encouragement arising from this identity of affec- tion and principle ! Especially is it consoling in the assur- ance which it gives us of the answer to all our prayers which are conceived in the Holy Ghost. Does the believer have, for instance, a genuine and spiritual aspiration for the growth of Zion ? Let him take courage ; that desire was only born in his breast because it before existed in the breast of His head, that Mediator whom the Father heareth always.

The instrumental bond of the union is evidently faith — i. e., when the believer exercises faith, the union begins ; and by the exercise of faith it is on his part perpetuated. See Eph. iii : 17; Jno. xiv ; 23, Gal. iii : 26, 27, 28. First: God embraces us with His electing and renewi-ng love ; and we then embrace Him by the actings of our faith, so that the union is consum- mated on both sides. One of the results, or, if you please, forms, of the union is justification. Of this, faith is the instru- ment ; for, " being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The other form is sanctification. Faith has the instrumental rela- tion to this also; for He " purifieth our hearts by faith ;" " faith worketh by love ; " and it is the victory which overcometh the world.

Christ compares the spiritual union of His people to Him- self, with that of Himself to His Father. The tratecl. ^ "'°" ^^" resemblance must be in the community of graces, of affections, and of volitions ; and not in the identity of substance and nature. Our conscious- ness assures us that our personality and separate free-agency are as complete after as before the union ; and that our being is no how merged in the substance of Christ. To this agree all the texts which address the believer as still a separate person, a responsible free agent, and a man, not a God. The idea of a personal or substantial union would imply the deification of man, which is profane and unmeaning. But when we consider Christ's relation as Mediatorial person (and not merely as Aoyoc) to God the Father, we have a more apt representation of His union to His people. For this union is maintained by a

6l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

spiritual indwelling in Him. The union between Christ's divin- ity and humanity, as conceived by the Nestorians (see lecture xxxix.) would afford also a more apt representation of the believer's union. The Nestorians represented it as a a'jvaifzco., not a h(oa::, and expressly asserted it to be generically the same with, and only higher in degree than, the mystical union of the Godhead with believers. But then, they were understood as making of Christ two persons, We, who hold with the Coun- cil of Chalcedon, cannot use theunion of the two natures of the person of Christ, to illustrate the believer's union to Him ; because we have shown that it*does not result in a proper one- ness of person. The Church with its Head is only a spiritual corporation, and not a literal person.

But on the other hand, to represent Christ's union as only , ,, that of a mere Leader and His followers a

Not that of Mere • r .■ . • . . j rr ,•

Leader. union ot sentiment, interests and anections,

would be entirely too feeble. In the case of the Leader admired and devotedly followed, there is only an emission of moral suasion and example, producing these results. In the case of Christ and His people, there is far more ; there is the emission of a Divine and vital Substance, the Holy Ghost, who literally unites Christ and His people, by dwelling and operating identically (though far differently in degree) in both ; and who establishes and maintains in the creature by supernatural power, the same peculiar condition, called spiritual hfe ,which exists, in the Head. In a word, there is truly a sap, a cement which unites the two, that is a thing, and not merely an influence, a divine, living, and Almighty Thing, viz.: Holy Ghost.

Yet, while we thus assert a proper and true indwelling of pi.- ^^^ Holy Ghost, with the believer's soul (and of^the Subs?ance^of thf ^^"s mediately of the soul and Christ), we Godhead. see nothing in the Bible to warrant the belief

of a literal conjunction of the substance of the Godhead in Christ, with the substance of the believer's soul ; much less of a literal, local conjunction of the whole mediatorial person, includ- ing the humanity, with the soul. " Christ does dwell in our hearts by faith." " It is He that liveth in us," but it is in a multitude of other places explained to mean the indwelling of His Holy Ghost.

Now, I cannot but believe that the gross and extreme Determin es our views of a real presence and op?{s oper-atitm, in View of Lord's Sup- the Lord's supper, which prevailed in the '^^^' Church from the patristic ages throughout

the mediaeval, and which infect the minds of many Protestants now, arise from an erroneous aud overstrained view of the mys- tical union. This union effectuates redemption. We all agree that the sacraments are its giigns and seals. (See i Cor, xii : 13 : I Cor. X : 17, ct passim). Now, the Fathers seem to have

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 617

imagined that spiritual life must result from a literal and sub- stantive intromission of Christ's person into our souls, just as corporeal nutrition can only result when the food is taken sub- stantially into the stomach, and assimilated with our corporeal substance. In this sense they seem to have understood the eating of Jno. vi : 5 1^ etc. (which was currently misapplied to the Lord's supper). Hence, how natural that in the Lord's sup- per, the sacramental sign and seal of the vitalizing union, they should imagine a real presence, not only of the God-head naturally, and of the Holy Spirit in His sanctifying influences, but of the whole Mediatorial person, and a literal feeding thereon. Hence, afterward, transubstantiation and consubstan- tiation, and the more refined, though equally impossible theory of Calvii), of a literal, and yet only spiritual feeding on the whole person.

The same general law of thought appears in what may be called the Pan-Christism of the " Mercersburg School," of modern semi-Pantheism. These divines having revived the old mystical idea of the substantive oneness of the human and divine spirit, through the medium of the incarnation, consist- ently assert a species of real-presence of the mediatorial per- son in the Supper. The connection is conclusive.

Let us disembarrass our views of the mystical union; and these unscriptural perversions of the sacraments will fall away of themselves. We shall make them what the Word makes them — commemorative signs, and divinely appointed seals of covenant blessings ; all of which blessings are summed up in our legal and spiritual union to Jesus Christ; and this union constituted solely by the blessed and ineffable indwelling of Christ's Holy Spirit in our souls, as a principle of faith and sanctification. There is, then, no other feeding on Christ's per- son but the actings of the soul's faith responsive to the vital motion of the Holy Ghost, embracing the benefits of Christ's redeeming work.

To one who apprehends the dignity and intimacy of this union aright, there will appear a strong a soluble.^ ^^^^ "'^'^" P^i-ori probability that it will be indissoluble. The efficient parties to it are Christ and the Holy Ghost ; parties divine, omniscient, immutable. The im- mediate effect on man's soul is the entrance of supernatural life, and the beginning of the exercises of new and character- istic and spiritual acts. One would hardly expect to find that these Divine and Almighty Agents intended any such child's play, as the production of a temporary faith and grace, in such transactions ! When we discuss the doctrine of the persever- ance of the saints, we shall find this a priori evidence con- firmed. Our purpose now is not to anticipate that argument ; but to suggest at this place, the presumption.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Eph. i: 4
  2. Col. ii: 10

SYLLABUS

1. What is the importance of correct views on this doctrine ?

Dick, Lect. 69. Turrettin, Loc. xvi, Qu. i. Owen on Justification, (Assem- bly's Edit.), p. 76-82.

2. VV'hat is the scriptural idea or meaning of God's acts of justification ? State and refute Popish view, and estabhsh the true view.

Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. i. Owen, ch. 4. Dick, Lect. 69. Hill, bk. v, ch. 2. Ridgley, Qu. 70. Knapp, ^ 109. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 23, § i. Bellarmine's Controversia. Liber de Justificatione. Council of Trent. Ses. 6, ch. 7. Calvin's Inst., bk. iii, ch. n. Dr. W. Cunningham, ch. 21.

3. Does the inherent grace wrought by God in the believer's soul or good works proceeding therefrom, merit anything towards justification ?

Calvin's Inst., bk. iii, chs. 15, 17. Turrettin, Qu. 2. Owen, chs. 5, 6. Coun- cil of Trent, Ses. 6, chs. 7 to 10, and Canons 11, &c., de Justi. Bellarmine, as above. Dr. A. Alexander's Tract on Justification.

4. Is justification mere remission of sins ; or does it include the bestowal of a title to favour and reward ? And is Christ's active, as well as His passive obedience,, imputed to behevers therefore ?

Turrettin, Qu. 3,4. Owen. ch. 12. Dick, Lect. 69, 70. Hill, as above. Knapp, § 115. Watson, as above, § 2. Dr. A. Alexander, as above.

5. What is adoption?

Turrettin. Loc. xvi, Qu. 6. Dick, Lect. 73. Ridgley, Qu. 74. See on whole,. Conf. of Faith, ch. 1 1 ; and Catechisms, on Qu. 4. Dorner's Hist. Prot. Theol. Vol. i, g 3, of Div. 3.

TT is obvious to the first glance, that it is a question of the first importance to sinners, " How shall man be just with , ^ God?" The doctrine of justification was the

I. Its Importance. ,.,.., •', . r

radical prmciple, as we have seen, out 01 which grew the Reformation from Popery. It was by adopting this, that the Reformers were led out of darkness into light. Indeed, when we consider how many of the fundamental points of theology are connected with justification, we can hardly assign it too important a place. Our view of this doctrine must determine, or be determined by, our view of Christ's satis- faction ; and this, again, carries along with it the whole doc- trine concerning the natures and person of Christ. And if the proper deity of Him be denied, that of the Holy Ghost w^ill very certainly fall along with it ; so that the very doctrine of the Trinity is destroyed by extreme views concerning justifi- cation. Again : " It is God that justifieth." How evident, then, that our views of justification will involve those of God's law and moral attributes ? The doctrine of original sin is also brought in question, when we assert the impossibility of man's so keeping the law of God, as to justify himself It is a more familiar remark, that the introduction of the true doctrine of justification excludes that whole brood of Popish inventions, purgatory and penance, works of supererogation, indulgences, 618

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 619

sacrifice of the mass, and merit of congruity acquired by alms and mortifications.

Not to go again into these subjects at large, which are . . illustrated in your history of the Reforma-

Ground.'^^ °" ^^ ' ^ tion, it may be briefly repeated, that as is our conception of the meritorious ground of jus- tification, such will be our conception of its nature. This prop- osition will be found necessarily decisive of every man's scheme of justification, be it what it may. If its ground is absolute, complete and infinite, the righteousness of Jesus Christ, it also will be an act complete, final and absolute, equal in all justified persons, admitting no increment, and leaving neither need nor room for any sacramental merit or penitential atonement. Once more : The blessed doctrine of an assurance of hope is intimately dependent on justification. If the latter is grounded on infused grace, and admits of loss and increment, the Chris- tian's opinion concerning the certainty of his own justification can never become an assurance, this side the grave ; for the very sufficient reason, that the fact itself is still suspended. If he were assured of it, he would believe an untruth ; for the thing itself is not yet sure. Hence, the propriety of Luther's decision, when, taught by his personal, as well as his theologi- cal, experience, he declared justification to be the cardinal doc- trine of the Church's creed.

The question concerning the true nature of justification should be strictly one of exegesis. All are Temi. '^'^" °^ ° agreed that it is God's act. Hence, the opin- ions of men, or the human meanings of words by which men have expressed God's descriptions of it in Scripture, are not worth one particle, in determining its nature. It may, however, be remarked, that all English theologians have adopted the Latin word justify [Justijico) from the Vetiis Itala, Latin Fathers and Latin Vulgate, an unclassical word, which would mean, etymologically, to make righteous. I may also remind you, that Augustine, and a few of the other fath- ers, misled by this etymology, and their ignorance of Greek, conceived and spoke of justification as a change of moral state, as well as of legal condition. Here is the poisonous germ of the erroneous doctrine of the Scholastics and of Trent concerning it; a striking illustration of the high necessity of Hebrew and Greek literature, in the teachers of the Church.

When we pass to the original Scriptures, we find the act of

justification described by a Hebrew and

ish ^DefinS; Our Greek verb, p^"lljn, (hiphil) and of/JuUo, with

their derivatives. Now, the Romish Church asserts, that the Scriptural idea of the act is not only God's accounting, but also making the sinner righteous, by both in- fusing the divine righteousness, and declaring it acceptable, in

620 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the sinner. We believe that the true meaning is not to make righteous in that sense, but only to declare righteous or make righteous in the forensic sense ; and that the act of justification does not change the moral state, but only declares, in the forum of heaven, the legal state of the sinner. The soundest reasons for this, we shall give, without any claim whatever to originality, merely aiming to present them in a brief, lucid, and logical order. The Holy Ghost, then, by justification, intends a foren- sic act, and not a moral change.

(a) Because, in a number of cases, He expresses a justifi- p , cation of objects incapable of being made

righteous by a moral change, by the justify- ing agents, in the given cases. Thus, Wisdom : Matt, xi : 19. God : Ps. li : 4 ; Job xx:xii : 2 ; Luke vii : 29.

(b) Because, in a multitude of cases, to justify is the con- trast of condemning ; e. g.. Job. ix : 20 ; Deut. xxv : i ; Rom, viii : 33, 34, &c. Now, to condemn does not change, but only declares the culprit's moral condition ; it merely fixes or appor- tions the legal consequence of his faults. Therefore, to justify does not make holy, but only announces and determines the legal relation.

(c) In some places, the act of a magistrate in justifying the wicked is pronounced very sinful, Prov, xvii : 15 ; Is. v : 23, Now, if to justify were to make righteous, to justify the wicked would be a most praiseworthy and benevolent act on the magistrate's part. From this very argument, indeed, some have raised a captious objection ; saying, if it is so iniquitous in the human magistrate to pronounce righteous him who is personally unrighteous, it must be wrong for God to justify in this (Calvin- istic) sense, the sinner. The answer is, that God, unlike the magistrate, is able to impute to the justified ungodly, a vicarious satisfaction for his guilt, and to accompany this justification with sanctifying grace, ensuring his future obedience.

(d) The adjuncts of the act of justification are all such as would indicate a forensic character for it. Rom. iii : 19, 20 : the objects of the act are men who are OTiodr/.nc. See also Job ix : 2, 3 ; Ps. cxliii : 2. There is a bar at which the act is performed. Luke xvi : 15 ; Rom. iv : 2 ; Is. xliii : 26. There is an advocate, pleading our cause, i Jno. ii : i.

e.) Finally, the equivalent expressions all point to a foren- sic act. Thus, in Rom. iv : 4-6, justification is explained by the forgiveness of iniquity, and covering of sin. In Rom. v : 9, we are justified by His blood and saved from wrath through Him; and V : 10, it is farther explained by reconciliation. In Jno. iii : 18; V : 24, &c., it is being not condemned, and passing from death to life. In a word, the only sense of the word which makes Paul's argument in Romans, ch. ii:S, intelligible, is the forensic sense ; for the whole question there is concerning the way of acquittal for a sinner before God.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 62 F

Papists, therefore, admit that the original words often carry . a forensic sense, even an exclusive one; and

opis jecions. ^j^^^ j^ ^j^^ justification of the sinner the fo- rensic idea is also present; but they claim that, in addition, a production of inherent righteousness in the justified person is intended by the word ; so that the believer is accounted, be- cause made personally righteous in justification. And in sup- port of this, they quote Is. liii : 1 1 ; Dan. xii : 3, from the Old Testament, and in the New, Rom. iii : 24 ; iv : 22 ; vi : 4, 5 ; viii : 10, 30; I Cor. vi : ii ; Heb. xi : 4; Titus iii : 5-7; Rev. xxii : II. Of the first two texts it is enough to say, that the forensic sense of the verb is perfectly tenable, when we assign only an instrumental agency to the gospel, or minister men- tioned ; and that sort of agency the Papist himself is compelled to give them. Of i Cor. vi : ii, it should be said that it is a case of introverted parallelism, in which the " washing " is gen- eral; and the sanctifying and justifying the two branches thereof. Can they be identical : tautological ? " Ye are sanc- tified by the Spirit of our God, and justified in the name of Christ." Rev. xxii : ii, only has a seeming relation to the sub- ject, in consequence of the Vulgate's mistranslation from an erroneous reading. The other passages scarcely require notice. The Protestant view of justification as to 3. Protestant Dehni- j^g nature, and meritorious cause may be seen

uon. • f-1 /-. 1 •

in Shorter Catechism, que 33. The doctrine of Rome is a masterpiece of cunning and

plausible error. According to this doctrine, initoRome°."'^''°''^' justification is rather to be conceived of as a

process, than an absolute and complete act. The initiation of this process is due to the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, (bestowed first in Baptism,) infusing and in- working a fides fonnata in the soul. Free will is by itself in- adequate for such an exercise, but yet neither doth the Holy Ghost produce it, without the concurrence of the contingent will of the believer. So that Rome's doctrine herein is syner- gistic. Moreover, the meritorious cause which purchases for the believer, this grace of a fides fonnata, is Christ's righteous- ness and intercession. But now, the a.'i'd-r^, with resultant good works, thus inwrought by grace, is the righteousness which is imputed to the believer, for his justification — i. e., to entitle him to life and adoption ; so that the work of justification not only accounts, but makes the sinner personally righteous. It will be seen how cunningly this doctrine, by mixing justification with sanctification, avails itself of the seeming support of such pass- ages as Rom. iv : 22, 24 ; x : 10 ; Acts x : 35 ;Gal. v : 6 ; Jas. ii : 26, how plausibly it evades those peculiar texts, as Rom. i : 17; Phil, iii : 9, which say that the righteousness which justifies us is God's ; and how " it keeps the word of promise to the ear, and breaks it to the sense," in seeming to ascribe something;

622 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

to the merit of Christ, while yet it is practically justification by works.

According to the Council of Trent then, the final cause of justification is (correctly), God's glory in the Causes of Justifica- bestowal of eternal life. The efficient cause, bon according to Rome. ^ ,, ,, ... ^.r. ■ i ^

God s grace ; the meritorious cause, the right- eousness of Jesus Christ ; (i. e., of His passion); the instrumen- tal cause, baptism ; the formal cause, the infused righteousness of God, dwelling in the believer. Justification will consequently be imperfect in all, different in degree in different ones, capa- ble of increment and diminution, and liable to entire loss, in case of backsliding ; nor can its continuance unto glory be certainly ascertained by the believer (except in case of inspira- tion), inasmuch as its continuance is not itself certain.

Now all sound Protestants assert, on the contrary, that

Justification not by ^^ere is no other justification than that which Inherent Grace and its Romanists describe as the initiation thereof, Works. which is a co.mplete and absolute act ; done

for the believer once for all, perfect and complete in all, needing and admitting no increment ; and above all, that God is not moved in any sort, to bestow this grace of justification by the congruous merit of our inwrought holiness ; but that this latter is, on the contrary, one of the fruits of our justification. We ut- terly exclude our own inherent holiness.

(a.) Because, however gracious, it is always imperfect. But the Law of God (Gal. iii : lo; Jas. ii : lo,)

Arguments. ^^^ accept nothing but a perfect righteous-

ness. Nor is it worth the Papist's while to say, that the believ- er's holiness is perfect tu habitn, but imperfect in actu. They also plead, since conversion is God's work, the godliness infused must be perfect in principle, because " the work of our Rock is perfect." Deut. xxxii : 4. I reply. His own works are, of course, perfect; but it may be far otherwise with those in which imperfect man is recipient, and his feeble faculties means. I urge, farther, that it is a fiction to represent that godliness as perfect in disposition and principle, which is imperfect in act. For the act expresses the principle. Said our Saviour : "Make the tree good, and the fruit good." It is a favorite claim of un- believers and Socinians, to say that their intentions and hearts are better than their conduct : whereas, Bible-saints always con- fess the human heart worse than its outward developments. And last : the plea would not avail the Papist, if granted ; be- cause God says that when man is judged on his merits, it is the overt act by which he is especially tried. Matt, xii : 37.

(b.) The Apostle sternly excludes works from the ground of justification. Rom. iii : 20, 28, &c., &c. And

Evasion of Rom. ni : j^. j^ no adequate answer to say: he means

' ' only to exclude ceremonial works. For be-

sides that, it is improbable the Apostle would ever have thought

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 623

it worth his while to argue against a justification by ceremonial works alone, inasmuch as we have no proof any Jew of that day held such a theory; we know that the Hebrew mind was not ac- customed to make the distinction between ceremonial and moral, positive and natural precepts. Moreover, the law whose works are excluded is, evidently from the context, the law whose works might prompt boasting, the law which was over Jew and Gentile alike^the law which was the term of the Covenant of works, and from whose curse Christ delivers us.

Another evasion is attempted, by saying the Apostle only

excludes the works of the unrenewed heart. Another Evasion. ^^ ^^^j^ . ^^^ -^ ^^^^^^ j^j^ ^^-^^ ^^ ^^^^^

their exclusion, when nobody was so impudent as to assert their value? Again, his language is general. He excludes all works which stand opposed to faith ; but there is as much contrast be- tween working and believing, after, as before conversion. Then, the illustrations which the Apostle uses, are David and Abra- ham, all of whose works he excludes from their justification. Surely the Hebrew would not naturally refer to their good works, as those of an unsanctified man ! In fine, the manner in which, in Rom. vi, the Apostle answers the charge of " making void the law through faith," proves that he meant to exclude all works.

(c.) Our justification is asserted, in many forms, to be all of grace, to exclude boasting, to be by Christ's righteousness, as contrasted with ours. We assert that the freedom of grace, and the honour of Christ in our salvation are grievously marred by the Popish doctrine. Human merit is foisted in.

(d.) No holy exercises, nor gracious acts, whatever their source, have any relevancy to atone for past guilt. But remiss- ion of this is the more essential part of the justification, if either is.

(e.) When once the righteousness of Christ, which the Council of Trent allows to be the meritorious cause for initiat- ing a justified state, is applied, we assert that the whole change of legal attitude is effected ; and nothing remains that can be done more. The man " is passed from death unto life," and hath eternal life," Jno. v ; 24; iii : 36. There is no condem- nation to him. Rom. viii : i. He "hath peace " with God. R.om. v : I. He " is reconciled," v ; 10, and has acquired a vica- rious merit, which a fortiori 3iSsures all subsequent gifts of grace without any additional purchase. He is adopted. Jno. i : 12. In a word, the righteousness imputed being infinite, the justifi- cation grounded on it is at once complete, if it exists at all.

(f.) The Popish idea that justification can be matured and carried on by inherent grace is inconsistent with God's nature and law. Suppose the believer reinstated in acceptance, and left to continue and complete it by his imperfect graces ; why should not his first shortcoming- hurl him down into a state of

624 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

condemnation and spiritual death, just as Adam's first did him > Then his justification would have to be initiated over again. The only thing which prevents this, is the perpetual presenta- tion of Christ's merit on the believer's behalf. So that there- is no room for the deservings of inherent grace.

The Catechism defines justification as a pardoning of all

our sins, and an acceptance of us as righteous

4 Justification is both jj^ Qod's sight. It is more tfian remission.

Pardon and Adoption. , . ° .-^i ^ /^ i> r i

bestowmg also a title to God s tavour, and

adoption to that grace and glory which would have been won had we perfectly kept the Covenant of Works. On the con- trary, the Arminian declares justification to be nothing but simple forgiveness, asserting that, as absence of life is death, cessation of motion is rest, so absence of guilt is justification. The Scriptural ground on which they rely is that class of pas- sages represented by Rom. iv : 4-8, where Paul defines, for in- stance, justification as that pardon of iniquities and covering of sin which David sung in Ps. xxxii. See also Acts v : 31 ; Eph. i : 7 ; Rom. v : 16, &c. We reply: We admit that for- giveness is the first element, and a very important element of justification ; and that wherever bestowed, it always infallibly draws after it the whole act and grace. In passages where it was not the immediate scope of the sacred writer, therefore, to define the whole extent of justification, what more natural than that it should be denominated by this characteristic element, in which a guilty conscience will naturally feel itself more immedi- ately interested ? Surely, if in other places we find the act described as containing more, we should complete our defi- nition of it, by taking in all the elements which are embraced in all the places. We argue, then :

(a) That the use of the words and their meaning would indicate that remission is not the whole idea of justification. Surely, to declare righteous is another thing than a mere decla- ration of exemption from penalty, even as righteousness is another state, than that of mere exemption from suffering. This leads us to remark :

(b) That the law contains a two-fold sanction. If its terms

be perfectly kept, the reward will be eternal

Righteousness more jjfg if they be broken in any respect, the

than Guiltlessness. ' -^ .,, , , .1 t-> 1 1

punishment will be death. Pardon alone

would release from the punishment of its breach, but would not entitle to the reward of its performance. In other Avords, he who broke it, and has suffered the penalty, therefore does not stand on the same platform with him who has kept it. Sup- pose, for instance, I promise to my servants a reward for keep- ing my commands, and threaten punishment for breaking them. At the end of the appointed time, one of them has kept them, and receives the reward. A second one has broken them, and is chastised. Suppose this second should then arise and claim

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 625

his reward also, on the ground that suffering the full penalty of the breach was an entire equivalent for perfect obedience ? Common sense would pronounce it absurd. Hence, the Ar- minian logic, that remission is justification, is seen to be erro- neous. Since Christ steps into the sinner's stead, to fulfil in his place the whole Covenant of Works, He must, in order to pro- cure to us full salvation, both purchase pardon for guilt, and a positive title to favour and life. The sinner needs both. Ar- minians have sometimes argued that the one necessarily implies the latter ; because a moral tertuim qtiid is inconceivable ; there is no place between heaven and hell to which this person, guilt- less and yet not righteous, could be consigned. We reply, the two elements are indeed practically inseparable ; but yet they are distinguishable. And, while there can be no moral neu- trality, yet, in the sense of this argument, guiltlessness is not equal to righteousness ; e. g., Adam, the moment he entered into the Covenant of Works, was guiltless, (and in one sense righteous). God could not justly have visited him with inflic- tions, nor taken away from his present natural happiness. But did Adam, therefore, have a title to that assured eternal life, in- cluding all the blessings of perseverance, infallible rectitude, and sustaining grace, which was held out in the Covenant, as the reward to be earned by obedience ? Surely not. Now this is what the sinner needs to make a complete justification — what Christ gives therein. The Arminian's error is betrayed by another of his own positions. He insists that the beHever's faith is imputed to him for righteousness : i. e., as a putative righteous- ness graciously accepted for his justification. But he will not deny that pardon is for the merit of Christ's sacrifice. For what justification then is this imputation of faith made ? His own dogma is only rescued from absurdity, by having in the mind that very element of justification which he denies : an acceptance or adoption into life which is more than mere pardon.

(c) To this agree the Scriptures. Zech. iii : 4, 5, justifi- cation is not only the stripping off of the up ures. filthy garment, but the putting on of the fair

mitre and clean robe. Acts xxvi : 18, faith obtains forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among the saints. Rom. v : 1,2, justifir cation by faith brings us not only peace with God, but access to a state of grace, and joy and glory. Gal. iv : 5, Christ's coming under the curse for us, results in a redemption, which includes adoption. Jno. i : 12, believingis the immediate instru- ment of adoption, &c., &c.

Second: Those who admit this definition of justification,

will, of course, admit that the righteousness

dience Imput^!^'''^ °''^' by which the sinner is justifi^ed must include

a full obedience to the preceptive, as well as

the penal part of the law. And as that righteousness, (to an-

40*

626 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ticipate a point of future discussion) is Christ's, hence, the merit of His obedience to the precepts, as well as , of His atoning sufferings, must be imputed to us for justification. [It is common for theologians to say : " both His active and pas- sive obedience" are imputed. The phrase is clumsy. In truth, Christ's sufferings contained an active obedience ; and it is this which made them a righteousness : for mere pain, irrespective of the motive of voluntary endurance, is not meritorious. And Christ's obedience to precepts was accompanied with endu- rance.]

(a) All the arguments then, by which the last head was

supported, also go to prove that both parts rgumen s. ^^ Christ's righteousness are imputed for

justification, (if either is). He undertook to stand in our law- stead ; and do for us, what the Covenant of Works demanded of us for our eternal life. We have seen that after we sinned, it required an obedience penal and preceptive.

(b) It is most scriptural to suppose that all Christ did as a mediatorial person, was for us, and in our stead. Did Christ then, obey the preceptive law, as one of His official functions ? The answer is, there was no other reason why He should do it — of which more anon. See Matt, iii : 15 ; v : 17.

(c) In many places, Christ's bearing the preceptive law is clearly implied to be for our redemption. See for instance, Gal. iv : 4. By what fair interpretration can it be shown that the law under which He was made, to redeem us, included nothing but the penal threatenings ? " To redeem us who were under the law." Were we under no part of it but the threats ? See, also, Rom. v : 18, 19, "By the obedience of Christ, many are made righteous." The antithesis and whole context show that obedience to precepts is meant. Rom. viii : 3, 4. What the law failed to do, through our moral impotency, that Christ has done for us. What was that ? Rather our obedience than our suffering. See, also, Heb. x : 5-7.

In the days of the Reformation, Andr. Osiander vitiated

the doctrine of justification bv urging, that if

Osiander's View. ^^^^.^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^ obligation to keep

the preceptive law, (as who can doubt?) then He owed all the obedience of which He was capable on His own account, and therefore could not render it as our surety. Hence, he sup- posed that the righteousness imputed to us is not that of the God-man on earth, but the inherent or natural righteousness of the Deity. The Socinians and others have adopted this cavil, making it the staple of one of their objections to imputation. The answer is threefold. 1st. Christ did, indeed, owe complete oljedience to law, after assuming His vicarious task. But for what purpose was the obligation assumed ? For what purpose was the very humanity assumed, by which He came under the obligation? To redeem man. The argument is, therefore, as

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 62/

preposterous as though, when a surety comes forward, and gives his own bond, to release his bankrupt friend, the creditor should refuse to cancel the bankrupt man's bond, saying to the surety : " Now, you owe me the money for yourself, for I hold your bond!" The security would speedily raise the question: " What was the value received, for which I, who otherwise owed nothing, gave this bond ? It was nothing else than the promised release of this bankrupt's bond." Thus every lawyer would scout the argument of the Socinian, as profligate trifling. See Witsius, bk. ii : chap. 3, § 14, &c. But second : Christ, as God- man, was not obliged to render any obedience to the law, to •secure the justification of His own mediatorial person: because He was personally accepted and justified from the beginning. See Matt, iii : 17 ; Heb. i : 6. For whom, then, was this obedi- ence rendered, if not for His people ? And third : The obedi- ence, though rendered in the human nature, was the obedience of the divine person. That person, as divine, could not be sub- ject, on His own personal behalf, to law, being the sovereign. Hence, it must be vicarious obedience, and being of infinite dignity, is sufficient to justify not one believer only, but all.

Adoption cannot be said to be a different act or grace from

justification. Turrettin devotes only a brief What? separate discussion to it, and introduces it

in the thesis in which he proves that justifi- cation is both pardon and acceptance. Owen says that adop- tion is but a presentation of the blessings bestowed in justifica- tion in new phases and relations. And this is evidently correct ; because adoption performs the same act for us, in Bible repre- sentations, which justification does : translates us from under God's curse into His fatherly favour. Because its instrument is the same : faith. Gal. iii : 26, with iv : 6, 7 ; Titus iii : 7 ; Heb. xi : 7; Jno. i : 1 2. And because the meritorious ground of adoption is the same with that of justification, viz : the righteousness of Christ. See Heb. xi : 7 ; Eph. i : 6 ; and texts above. The chief doctrinal importance of this idea then is, that we have here, the strongest proof of the correctness of our definition of justification, and of the imputed righteousness upon which it is based, in the fact that it is both a pardon and an adoption.

The representation of our adoption given in Scripture, with its glorious privileges, is full of consoling and encouraging practical instructions. The student may see these well set forth in Dick's 73d Lecture.

SYLLABUS

6. State the general argument, (against Moralists, Socinians, Pelagians, &c.,) ta prove that works cannot justify

Turrettin, Loc. xvi, Qu. 2. Owen, chs. lo, 14. Dick, Lects. 69, 70. Hill, bk, V, ch. 2. Dr. A. Alexander. Tract.

7. How then reconcile James and Paul, Rom., chs. 3, 4 ; and James, ch. 2 ? Owen, ch. 20. Turrettin, Qu. 8. Dick, Lect. 71. Watson's Theol Inst., ch.

23. § 4-

8. Refute the lower Arminian scheme ; that Christ only purchased for us a milder law, which accepts penitence and evangelical obedience, instead of perfect obedience.

Owen, ch. 11. Dick, Lect. 70. Waston's Theol. Inst., as above, and | 3 Witsius, bk. i, ch. 9.

9. State and refute the Wesleyan, (or higher Arminian theory), that faith is im- puted as our righteousness.

Turrettin, Qu. 7, ^ I-14. Owen, ch. 3. Dick, Lect. 71. Watson, Theol. Inst., ch. 23, ^ 3. Hodge, Theol. p, iii, ch. 17, § 8.

10. Complete, then, the argument of our 4th question, by showing what is the meritorious ground of justification.

See Owen, chs; 16, 17. Turrettin, Qu. 3, g 11-21. Hill, Dick, Alexander as above. Hodge, as above, § 4.

npHE particular phase in which the Romish Church foists- the merit of works into justification, has been considered 6. Justification not i" discussing its nature. But now that we by Works. Evasions approach the Subject of its grounds, it is of Scripture. necessary that we study the general reasons

for the exclusion of works, in more comprehensive views. We find the Apostle, Rom. iii : 20, declaring: "Therefore, by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

1. To this agree the views expressed by all the sacred writers of the Old and New Testaments. See Ps. cxxx : 3, 4; Ixxi : 16; cxliii : 2; Dan. ix : 18; Job xl : 4. These instances are peculiarly instructive, as showing that Paul broaches no new doctrine ; and especially as excluding the Romish pretext, that only works of the carnal nature are excluded ; because the Psalmist and Job are the very men who, in other places, make most earnest protestations of their sincerity and piety. Then our Saviour teaches the same doctrine. Luke xvii : 10; xviii : 14. And the Epistles likewise. Rom. iii : 28 ; iv : 6 ; xi . 6 ; Gal. iii : 1 1 ; Eph. ii : 8, 9, &c., &c.

2. Justification cannot be by the law, " because b}' the law is

the knowledge of sin." That law which has Convicts "'^*^^ ^""^ already condemned cannot be the means of

our acquittal. See Eph. ii : 3. The battle is already hopelessly lost, the die cast, and cast against us on this 628

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 629

scheme. If it is to be retrieved, some other method must be found for doing it.

3. The law of God is absolute ; as the transcript of God's

moral perfections, and the rule of a perfectly Because the Law is j^^j q^j ^^^j.^^ cannot favour any sin, it Absolute. ■' . ' . -^ '

requires a periect, universal, and perpetual

obedience during the time of the probation. See Matt, xxii : 37, 38, &c.; James ii : 10; Gal. iii: 10. Every precept applicable to our condition must be kept ; they must be kept all the time ; and must all be always kept with perfectly proper motives or intentions ! There is not a man upon the earth who, when his conscience is convinced of sin by the Holy Ghost, and enlight- ened to apprehend the majesty and purity of his Judge, would be willing to risk his acquittal on the best act he ever performed in his life. But see i Jno. iii : 20.

4. While sincerely good works are an all-important part of Because our Only ^"-^^ salvation, they cannot be the ground of

Works Fruits of Justi- our justification, because they are a result ^'^^^'°"- thereof. It is by coming into a state of

favour with God, that we acquire from His grace spiritual strength to do anything truly good. See Jno. xv : 1-5 ; Rom. V : 1-2 ; vi : 3, 4, 6 ; Gal. ii : 20. All other works which man does are carnal, selfish, or slavish, and wholly unmeritorious before a perfect God. Hence, it is preposterous to attribute to our works any procuring influence as to our justification.

Indeed, the exclusion of works by Paul is so emphatic, that

there must be some evasion adopted, to limit A ^stle^s Point ^^^™ ^^^^ meaning in order to leave a loophole for

doubt. Those evasions we have discussed in detail. We would remark generally, in closing this topic, that the fair way to judge what Paul meant by " works of law," is to find out what an intelligent Pharisee (he was reared one, and was now debating with them), would mean by " the Law," when named without qualification. The answer is plain, the Torah, the whole Law of the Pentateuch, moral, civic and cer- emonial. And this law was*conceived of, not merely as a set of carnal ordinances, or dry forms, but as a rule spiritually holy and good. See Ps. xix : 7 ; i : 2. Nor are we to conceive that the intelligent Jews thought of an obedience to this law merely unspiritual, slavish and carnal. They comprehended such pre- cepts as Deut. vi : 4, 5 ; Ps. Ii : 6, to be an important part of the Law : and the evidence is, in such passages as Mark xii : 28-33 > X : 19, 20. This certainly is the sense in which St. Paul employed the phrase, " works of the law," when he excludes them from justification, in his epistles. See Rom. iii : 20, with vii : i-i 2 : viii : 3, 4 : ix : 3 1 ; x : 3.

The Scripture which has been supposed to offer the greatest

.. difficulty against Paul's view, is Jas. ii : 12

J.James u.12-2. ^^ ^^^ q^^ ^^-^^ j^ ^^^ ^^ remarked, for

630 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

introduction : that if there is a real contradiction, both Epistles cannot be regarded as canonical ; our alternative is to reject Paul or James, or else to show their difference only seeming. Further: when one writer treats a given topic formally and professedly, (as Paul obviously does justification in Rom.), and another only incidentally, it is out of all reason to force the seeming sense of the latter on the former.

It is well remarked by Owen, that James' scope is totally different from Paul's. James' is, to defend Tetl'ntlo^D'JLLt justification by faith from an Antinomian preversion. (See ver. 14.) Paul s is, to prove, against Legalists, what is the meritorious ground of jus- tification. Rom. i : 17. Again : the faith of which James speaks, is a dead faith : such a faith as Paul himself would judge non-justifying ; that of which Paul speaks, when he makes it the sole instrument of justification, is a living faith, infallibly productive of good works. See Rom. vi. And third : the jus- tification of which James speaks, presents a different phase from Paul's, namely : not God's secret and sovereign judicial act, transferring the sinner from a state of condemnation at the time of his conversion, but that act declaratively manifested at any and every subsequent time, especially at the day of judg- ment. That this is James' meaning, is argued by Owen irre- fragably from vv. 21-23. The apostle says, Abraham's justifica- tion by works, when he proposed to sacrifice Isaac, was a ful- filling of that Scripture, (Gen. XV : 6), which says: " He believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness." For that justification by faith was notoriously some thirty years before the offering of Isaac. The latter transaction must therefore be the fulfilling of the former stamement, in the sense that Abra- ham's justification was then not originated, but evinced. See close of ver. 23. These three remarks do sufficiently show, that James ought not to be held as contradicting Paul, when their scope and use of terms are so very different.

But a juster view of the matter will be gained by connect- Work Essential as ^^S ^"^ view of James ii : 14-26, with the Sign of Justification, other passages, where a similar, seeming dif- Worthless as Cause. ference is presented — e, g., Ps. xv : i, 2 ; xxiv : 3, 4 ; Matt, xxv : 34, 35, 41, 42 ; Jno. xv : 8, 14 ; Acts X : 35 ; I Jno. iii : 7. The amount of all these texts is, that a just life is the test of a justified state ; and the general remark is obviously true, that this is a very different thing from assert- ing that the former is the procuring cause of the latter. Fruit is the test of healthy life in a fruit tree : not therefore the cause of that life. These simple ideas go far to explain the seeming contrariety of these texts to former citations. But perhaps the application of such an explanation to Jas. ii : 14- 26, will be attended in the student's mind, with sdme difficulty, just here. Are we dealing fairly with the text, to suppose that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 63 1

James does indeed use the word justify, a word of meaning so exact, definite and thoroughly estabhshed in Bible usage, in a new sense, without giving us any notice thereof? The exeget- ical evidence that he does, is well stated by Owen, (above). And the view is greatly strengthened by observing that the differ- ence of meaning is in fact not so great. What is the transac- tion described, for instance, in Matt, xxv : 34, 35, and how does it differ from the act described in Rom. iii : 28 ? The latter describes the sinner's justification to God ; the former the sin- ner's justification to God's intelligent creatures, (a more correct statement than Owen's, that it describes his justification by man). Each is a declaratory and forensic act ; but the one is secret as yet to God and the justified soul ; the other is a pro- clamation of the same declaration to other fellow-creatures. And it is most proper that the latter should be based on the personal possession of a righteous character : in order that the universe may see and applaud the correspondence between God's justifying grace and His sanctifying grace; and thus the divine holiness may be duly magnified.

A scheme of justification has been advanced by many of

the lower Arminians, which is, in its practical Lower the Law. results, not far removed from the Popish. It

represents that the purpose of Christ's work for man was not to procure a righteousness to be imputed to any individual behevers ; but to offer to God such a mediatorial work, as would procure for believers in general the repeal of the old, absolute and unbending law as a rule of justification, and the substitution of a milder law, one which demands only sincere evangelical obedience. The thing then, which is impu- ted for the sinner's justification, is the whole merit of his sin- cere faith, humble penitence, and strivings to do his duty, which God is pleased, for Christ's sake, to accept in lieu of a perfect righteousness. These theologians would say, with the Romanists, and higher Arminians, that our " faith is accounted as our righteousness ; " but they would define justifying faith as a seminal principle of good works, and inclusive of all the obedience which was to flow from it. The point of inosculation of this, and the Popish theory, (determining them to be the same in essential character) is here. They both conceive Christ as having procured for man (in general) a new probation, evangelical indeed, instead of absolute ; but in which the sinner still has his own proxi- mate merit of justification to work out, by something he does. Whereas, the Bible conception is, that the Second Adam per- fected, for His people, the line of probation dropped by Adam, by purchasing for them a title to eternal life, and covering also all guilt of the breaches of the first covenant. The student cannot discriminate these two conceptions too carefully. The former is "another gospel." It robs us of the very essence of

632 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

a salvation by grace. It violates that fundamental principle laid down by the Apostle, Rom. xi : 6 : that the two plans of adoption unto life, the legal and gospel plans, cannot be com- bined. The attempt to do so confounds both. In one word : since man's will, in its best estate is, per se, fallible, if the plan of our salvation is that of a new probation by obedience, and if God's grace in regeneration and sanctification is only syner- gistic, then no believer is ever sure of his redemption. Our view of Christ's substitution under the Covenant of Paradise determines our view of justification. Thus : Adam by nature was righteous, innocent and guiltless ; but not yet adopted. The first covenant was given him, that he might by it earn his adoption of life, his elevation from the state of a (holy) servant, to that of a son. He failed in the undertaking, and fell, with his race, into the state of an enemy, both corrupted and guilty. The second Adam steps into the place vacated by the fall of the first, takes up the work where he dropped it ; and, while He makes expiation for the guilt, original and actual pur- chases for all believers a perfect title, not to restoration to that mutable state from which Adam fell, but to that state of adoption, to which he had aspired. My desire is, that the stu- dent adopt this view as the touchstone of his doctrine.

I would remark, at the outset, that it comes with a very poor grace from these men to object to the imputation of ■ Christ's righteousness to us, because it was not literally and personally wrought by us. It seems they consider that it is more consistent in God to account a believer's righteousness to him as that which it is not, thus basing his justification on a falsehood, than to account the legal benefits of Christ's right- eousness to him for what it truly is — i. e., a perfect righteous- ness !

I refer here to the favourite cavil against imputation ; that it dishonours God, by representing Him as basing His judgment on a legal fiction. But I retort with the question : Which is more a legal fiction ; the Arminian scheme, which makes God adjudge a partial righteousness a complete one, per acceptilati- onem ; or ours, which represents Him as admitting an appropri- ate substitution, by which a perfect righteousness is rendered in the sinner's stead, and the law gloriously satisfied ? There is, in fact, no legal fiction in this whatever ; unless men mean to denounce the Scriptural doctrine of substitution. God's judgment does not assert the perfect righteousness as done by the believer ; w^iich it was not ; but as done for the believer ; which it was. I explained the true nature of " satisfaction," by the parable of the landlord ahd his bankrupt tenant. The bankrupt's brother, who is his surety, is a competent and faith- ful carpenter. As the landlord is building extensively, the surety proposes to pay the whole debt in faithful labour, at so much per diem, the fair market price of such labour. When

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 633

that labour is all rendered, where is the legal fiction in the cred- itor's giving receipt in full ? But had the surety proposed that he should receive receipt in full for some half-worthless script belonging to his bankrupt brother, this would have been a legal fiction indeed !

Against this form of the Arminian scheme, I present the following :

I. The source and basis of God's moral law is His own moral character ; which is necessary and urrngeablJaJG:! immutable. Supposing creatures to exist there are certain relations between them and God, which cannot be other than they are, God continuing what He is. Among these must obviously be the essential moral relations of the law. These flow, not from any positive institution of God alone, but also from the very relations of creatures and the attributes of God. And if any moral rela- tions are necessary, the requirement of a universal obedience is clearly so ; because our Saviour represents the obligation to love God with all the mind, soul, heart, and strength, and our neighbor as ourself, as the very essence of that law. Hence, the idea that God can substitute an imperfect law for one per- fect, is a derogation to His perfection. Either the former standard required more than was right, or the new one requires less than is right ; and in either case God would be unright- eous. That Christ should perform all His work as an induce- ment to His father to perpetrate such unrighteousness, would be derogatory to Him. Hence, we find that He expressly repudi- ates such a design. Matt, v : 17. And here we may add, that the Bible nowhere indicates such a relaxation of the behever's law of living. David, a justified person, represents the rule by which he regulated himself, as " perfect," " pure," and " right," and "very righteous." Ps. xix : 7, 8 ; cxix : 140; Jas. i : 25 ; ii : 10. Everywhere, the law which we are still required to obey, is the same law which, by its perfectness, condemned us. Practically, the allowance of an imperfect standard of obedi- ence would be ruinous ; because man ever falls below his standard.

It is objected again : God has changed His law, substi- tuting certain simpler and easier precepts, in Asserted Changes 1 r ij • u „ <-• ,„ a-U^ u,,^

of Law Explained. pl^ce of old ones ; as m abrogatmg_ the bur-

densome ritual of Moses, and giving in its place the easy yoke of the New Testament ceremonial. We reply : those were only positive, not eternal and natural pre- cepts of morality ; the obligation to keep them only arose from God's command to do so ; and hence, when the command was retracted, there was no longer any sin in their omission. To retract such commands is far different from making that no longer sin, which is in its nature sin. Again, it has been objected, that God's permission has been given, in some cases,

634 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

to do what, without such permission, would have been, in its- nature sin ; as when Abraham was directed to slay Isaac, and and Israel the Canaanites. It seems to me surprising that these cases should be advanced with any confidence in this argu- ment, or that they should be supposed by any to prove that the intrinsic relations of morality are alterable by God's mere positive precepts ; or that so acute a writer as Mansel, in his " Limits of Religious Thought," should feel occasion to take refuge from the exigencies of the case, in the inability of human reason to conceive the infinite and absolute Being fully. The truth is, that in those cases there is no alteration whatever of any principle of natural morality, by which God has ever regulated Himself, or His human subjects. It always has been right for God to slay any of His rebel creatures, whom He pleases ; He kills some thirty millions of them each year, by various means. And whenever God appoints man to slay it is- no sin for him to do so, be it in the case of magistrates, self- defence, or defensive war. So that God's appointment of a man to take a given life renders it perfectly moral to take it. An instance of such an appointment is therefore no instance at all, of a conversion of what is naturally sinful into right. As fairly might one say, that when the master tells his servants that the unauthorized use of his substance is theft, and after- wards directs one of them to take and consume some fruit of his field, he has undertaken to alter the fundamental relations of morality ! We repeat : there is, and can be no case, in which God has made that which is naturally wrong to be right.

2. Scripture represents the Bible saints as repudiating all

their own works, even while they protest thfSrfecrLaw.^^^""'' their affectionate sincerity in them. _ See

Job xl : 4, &c. Moreover, their consciences rebuke them for every shortcoming from perfect love and holi- ness. Surely that which cannot justify us to our own con- sciences, will hardly answer with God ! We appeal to each man's conscience : when it is enlightened by the Holy Ghost, does not it bear out this experience of Bible saints ?

3. By such a scheme of justification Christ's work, instead

of resulting in a complete harmonizing of No^beM^agnifieT"''^ God's absolute holiness and perfect Law, in

the sinner's acceptance, would leave the law forever ruptured and dislocated. We are taught in Scripture that Christ was to " magnify the Law, and make it honourable ; " " that mercy and truth were to meet together, and righteous- ness and peace kiss each other " ; that He " came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill." Now, if He has procured the abroga- tion of that perfect law, during each believer's Christian life, there is a demand of the law which remains unmet ; and that forever. The doctrine makes a piece of patchwork : men do not sew new cloth on an old garment.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 635

We conclude then, that the two methods of obtaining an adoption of Hfe cannot be compounded ; that, namely, by a pro- bation of works ; and that by gospel grace. The adoption of the one must exclude the other. This conclusion raises at once the question ; Has not the Covenant of Works, then, been abrogated? To this many of the Reformed reply: Yes: and they refer us, for proof, to such passages as Heb. viii : 13. Arminius also asserted an abrogation of the legal covenant with Adam, but it was in a far different sense, and for a different scope from those of the Reformed. Hence has arisen confusion and intermingling of views, which calls for careful disentangle- ment. Arminius claims that the legal covenant was wholly abrogated at Adam's fall ; because first, the promise of life through that covenant was then revoked, and vhere there is no compact there can be no obligation ; because second, man could not be justly bound to obedience in a state of orphanage where God neither promised nor bestowed the gracious help essential to enable him to a true and hearty service ; and because, third : it would be derogatory to God's wisdom, holi- ness and majesty, to practice such a farce as calling the depraved creature to a service of holy and entire love ; the only one a spiritual God can condescend to accept. The use which his party designed to make of their conclusion, was this : In order that fallen man may be justly brought again under obli- gation to obey, the law of a new covenant must be enacted for him, to which his impaired powers may be adequate, and the imposition of which must be accompanied by the enabling helps of common grace. Thus he sought to prepare the way for the theory of justification which we have been discussing under our eighth head.

Now, the Reformed divines of Holland easily refuted this kind of abrogation of the legal covenant by such facts as these. Man's obligation to obey never was founded merely in covenant between him and his Maker. It is founded immutably in the nature of God, and of His rational creature, and in their natural relation as Master and servant. The covenant only added a re- inforcement to that original obligation. Supposing the cove- nant completely abrogated, the original bond of duty would remain. Second : The inability of will, into which the race has fallen, is self-induced, and is itself criminal. Hence it does not at all relieve man of his just obligation. Third : It is one thing to say, it would be derogatory to God to allow Himself to be cheated by a heartless and hostile service from corrupt man ; but wholly another thing to say, as Arminius does, that man's criminal and voluntary hostility has stripped God of the proper right to demand of him the hearty and loving service naturally due. And the whole argument of Arminius is shown to be pre- posterous, by this result : That it makes the sinner gain eman- cipation from righteous obligation, by sinning. There is no-

<636 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

principle of law clearer than this ; that no man is entitled to plead his own wrong-doing. Posit the conclusion of Arminius ; and it will be only necessary for every creature in the universe to make himself vile, in order to strip God of His- whole right of rule. That is, the servant's wrong may dethrone his rightful Lord ! Once more : " where there is no law, there is no trans- gression." After obligation has ceased, of course, there is no more sin or guilt, and ought to be no more punishment. Thus we should reach this amazing result : Only let the creature make Himself wicked enough ; and God will no longer have a right to punish him for his new wickedness.

The abrogation of the legal covenant in that sense, then, is absurd and unscriptural ; and the student is placed at the proper point of view for appreciating the arguments by which we have above refuted that scheme of justification.

To what extent, then, does the consistent Reformed thelo- gian hold the old covenant to be abrogated ? The answer may be given by a series of propositions, which will commend them- selves to belief by their mere statement. The Ruler's claims to obedience are not abrogated by the subjects' falling by trans- gression, under penal relations to Him : So, all moralists and jurists hold, of all governments. God's law being the immuta- ble expression of His own perfections, and the creature's obli- gation to obey being grounded in his nature and relation to God, it is impossible that any change of the legal status under • any covenant imaginable, legal or gracious, should abrogate the authority of the law as a rule of acting for us. Third: It re- mains true, under all dispensations, that the " wages of sin is death." Fourth : It remains forever true, that a perfect obedi- ence is requisite to purchase eternal life. And such a compli- ance is rendered to the covenant of works for our justification, namely, by our Surety. Let us then beware how we speak of the covenant of works as in every sense abrogated ; for it is under that very covenant that the second Adam has acted, in purchasing our redemption. That is the covenant which He actually fulfills, for us. Again, it is that covenant under which the sinner out of Christ now dies, just as the first sinner was condemned under it. The law is still in force, then, in three re- spects : as the dispensation under which our Substitute acts for us : as the rule of our own obedience ; and as the rule by which transgressors dying out of Christ are condemned. Some, even, of the Reformed, have been so incautious as to conclude, that by the rule that " a compact broken on one side, is broken for both sides," transgression abrogates the legal covenant wholh', as soon as it is committed. One plain question exposes this : By what authority, then, does the Ruler punish the transgressor after the law is broken? If, for instance, a murder abrogated the legal covenant between the murderer and the common- wealth, from the hour it was committed, I presume that he would

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 637*

be exceedingly mystified to know under what law he was going

to be hung ! The obvious statement is this : The transgression

has indeed terminated the sinner's right to the sanction of

reward ; but it has not terminated his obhgation to obey, nor to

the penal sanction.

This last remark shows us, in what sense the covenant of

works was abrogated when Adam fell — and this is obviously the

sense of Paul. The proposal of life by the law is at an end for

the fallen ; they have forever disabled themselves for acquiring,

under that law, the sanction of reward, by their own works.

Hence, God, in His mercy, withdraws that covenant so far as it

is a dispensation for that result; and He substitutes for all who

are in Christ, the covenant of grace. Compare Gal. v : 3 ; iii :

10; Matt, v : 18; Rom. vi : 14, 15.

The Wesleyan divines, while they disclaim and argue

against the imputation of Christ's righteous- 9. Wesleyan View. ij-ji.i t, 1 ■ j.

^ ' ness, also discard the scheme we have just

considered. They say that faith is imputed as the believer's justifying righteousness. Justification is, with them, simply pardon. They define faith properly as a simply receiv- ing and resting upon Christ for salvation, and they ear- nestly disclaim the Socinian confusion adopted by so many of the Continental Arminians, which includes in the justify- ing power of faith the evangelical obedience of which it is oper- ative. If asked whether Christ has not made satisfaction for sin, they fully assent, and they say in many forms, that pardon is " through His blood," " in His name" and " for His sake alone." If we ask, " How is it then, that an act whose organic virtue in the matter of our justification is a simple receptivity, an act which brings nothing to satisfy the claims of law, but only receives, can be accounted to us as a substitute for a whole and complete righteousness? " They reply that this is the gracious effect of Christ's sacrifice ; this is what His precious blood pro- cures for us ; and this is the sense in which pardon is of free grace. Thus they suppose they escape the " absurdities of imputation," and still exalt the absolute freeness of Gospel redemption.

In this view, the doctrine is open to all the objections

,, , ^ . , urged against the one just refuted above, and Makes Faith a • ^ ° r r -^ .. / j-

^Yq,.]^ m greater force ; for it represents God s

imputation as a most glaring violation of

truth, in accounting not the imperfect duties of a Christian hfe,

but one imperfect act as a complete obedience ! And while it

seems to repudiate works, and establish faith, it really foists in

again the doctrine of human merit and works ; for faith is also

an act, an act of obedience to law. (Jno. vi : 29 ; i Jno. iii :

23), and if rendered as a matter of righteousness before God, or,

indeed, for anything except the. mere instrument of accepting

Christ, it is a work. But faith and work should be opposed.

■638 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Again : the idea that faith is accounted to us as our justi- fying righteousness, contradicts, in two ways, ceives. ° " ^' ^ " that nature which Scripture attributes to it. It is said in many places, that righteousness is by faith, (Rom. i: 17, etc., etc). Now, then, it cannot be identical with it. Moreover, faith is defined as an act purely receptive, and receptive of Christ our righteousness. Jno. i : 12. Now,.that it should be a righteousness when its very nature is to embrace a righteousness, is as contradictory, as that the beggar's confessions of destitution can constitute a price to pur- chase relief.

And last : the whole question is decisively settled against

_„ ^. , ^ this theory, as well as against the Popish,

1 he Righteousness Im- 1 n -1 r ^ i • 1 1 .1

puted is God's. ^^^ ^'^^ Other talse ones, which make the

procuring cause of our justification to be, -either in whole or in part, anything wrought by us, or wrought in us, in all those passages which declare that we are justi- fied on account of God's righteousness, and sometimes it is God's righteousness as contrasted with ours. See Rom. i : 17; iii : 22 ; Phil, iii : 9. How can these expressions be evaded? The righteousness by which we are justified is not ours, but God's — therefore not constituted of any acts or graces of ours.

But, says the Arminian, it is vain to speculate against the

„, , „ , express words of Scripture ; and here we have Wesleyan Proof- ■. r ^- ^ ^ -n.

texts Considered. ^t, lour tmies over. Gen. xv : 6 ; Rom. iv. ; 3,

5, 22, 24. We reply that they clearly over- strain and force the text. It is true, that in Gen. xv : 6, the ■construction is, " His faith was accounted righteousness (no preposition). • Now, suppose that in the other three cases in the New Testament, the construction were even as difficult as they suppose in this : would not a fair criticism say, that these some- what peculiar statements should not be strained into a sense contradictory to the current of plainer expressions elsewhere, which always say we obtain righteousness by our faith ! And as Calvin well argues, on Gen. xv : 6, when the very context clearly shows that the whole amount of Abraham's faith in this case was to embrace a set of promises tendered to him, since it did not bring anything on its own part to the transaction, but merely received what God brought, in His promise ; the sense must not and cannot be strained to make the receptive act the meritorious cause of the bestowal which itself merely accepted. There is obviously just such an embracing of the result in the instrument, as occurs in Jno. xii : 50 ; xvii : 3. But our case is far stronger than even this. The Septuagint and Paul, an inspired interpreter, uniformely give the sense, -cazi:: Xoy^Zsrac e/c or/M.coaow^v. This all these Arminian interpreters, with a perverse inattention or ignorance, persist in translating " faith is accounted as righteousness ; " the English ones being probably misled by the occasional use of our preposition, "for" in the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 639

sense of our "as" (e. g., " I reckon him for a valuable citizen)." But the Greek preposition, s.'C, with the accusative, rarely carries that sense. See one instance, Rom. ix : 8 ; and its obvious force in this passage is, that of designed results. " His faith is imputed in order to the attaining of righteousness" — i. e., Christ's. This gives faith its proper instrumental office. Com- pare Rom. X : lO. fliazs'JiTa: src (>ua'.oa-')vrv. Consult Harrison's Greek Prep., and cases, p. 226. Our argument for the Apos- tle's construction is greatly strengthened by observing that the Hebrew Syntax (see Nordheimer), expressly recognizes the construction of a noun objective after a verb, to express this very sense of intended result.

In conclusion of this head, the Scriptures clearly assign

AULocutionsof that office, on the whole, to faith. This Scripture Prove Faith appears, first, from its nature, as receptive of Instrumental. ^ promi.se. The matter embraced must of

course be contributed by the promiser. The act of the receiver is not procuring, but only instrumental. Second : all the locu- tions in which faith is connected with justification express the instrumental idea by their fair grammatical force. Thus, the current expressions are justified -iaxzt (Ablative), ota -iarsio:;, h. mazeoK. Never once are we said to be justified of« .tj'ot^v/ the construction which is commonly used to express the rela- tion of Christ's righteousness, or blood, to our justification.

We have now passed in review all the prominent theories

10. Proof of the which deny the truth. By precluding one. Doctrine from Scrip- and then another, we have shut the inquirer *"'"^- up to the Bible doctrine, that the sinner is

Justified " only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us." The remaining affirmative argument for this proposition is there- fore very short and simple ; it will consist in a grouping together of the Bible statements ; so classified as to exhibit the multitude of proof-texts by a few representatives :

1. Our justification is gratuitous. Rom iii : 24 ; Eph. ii : 5 ; Tit. iii : 7.

2. Christ is our Surety. Heb. vii : 22 : and our sins are imputed to Him, that His righteousness may be imputed to us. Is. liii : 6 and 1 1 ; 2 Cor. v : 21 ; i Pet. ii : 24.

3. He is our propitiation. Rom. iii : 25 ; i Jno. ii : 2.

4. We are justified through Christ, or for His name, or His sake, or by His blood. Acts x : 43 ; xiii : 38, 39 ; Eph. i : 7 : iv : 32 ; Rom. v : 9 ; i Jno. ii : 12.

5. Christ is called "our righteousness." Jer. xxxiii : 6 ; I Cor. i : 30 ; Rom. x : 4.

6. We are justified by His obedience, or righteousness. Rom. V : 18, 19.

7. The righteousness that justifies us is God's and Christ's, as opposed to ours. Rom. i : 17 ; iii : 22 ; Phil, iii : 9.

Let the student weigh these and such like texts, and he will

640 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

see accumulative proof of the proposition. In fine ; no other construction of the facts coheres with the doctrine of Christ's substitution. Let but the simple ideas, in which all evangelical Christians concur, be weighed; that Christ acted as our surety; that His mediatorial actions were vicarious; that we are justified in Him and for their sake ; and we shall see that the doctrine of our catechism is the fair and obvious result. What do men mean by a substitute or vicar ? That the acts which he does as such are accounted, as to their legal effect, as the acts of his principal.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Gal. iii: 10
  2. Rom. i: 17

SYLLABUS

11. Define and prove the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, and answer objections. Compare Adam's case, Rom. v.

See Turrettin. Loc. xvi, Qu. 3. Owen on Justif., chs. 7, 8. 10. Dick, Lect. 70. Dr. A. Alexander, Tract. Dr. Wm. Cunningham. Hist. Theol. ch. 21, ^ 3. Watson's Theol, Inst., ch. 23.

12. Is Justification a single, complete, and absolute Act? How related to after sins, and to the general Judgment ?

Turrettin, Qu. 9, 10. Owen, ch. 6. Hill, bk. v, ch. 2. Knapp, ^ 113. Dr. Cunningliam, as above, § 90. Tunettin, Qu, 5.

13. Is Faith the sole instrumental condition of Justification, or also Repentance? Turrettin, Qu. 7, 8. Owen, ch. 2, 3. Breckinridge, Theol. Subjective, bk. i, ch. 4. Thornwell's Collected Works, Vol. ii, pp. 37-40. Dick, Lect., 71.

14. How are Justification and Sanctification distinguislaed ! Are they insepar- able ? W'hy then discriminate ?

Turrettin. Loc. xvii, Qu. i. Dick, Lect, 71. Hill, bk. v, ch. 3.

15. What the proper Place and Importance of Good Works, in the Believer's Salvation ?

Turrettin, Loc. xvii. Qu. 3. Dick, Lect. 71. Hill, as above. Knapp, g 116, 117.

16. *' May we then sin, because we are not under the Law, but under Grace ? "

Dr. Jno. Witherspoon on Justification. Southern Review, (edited by Bledsoe) Art. I, April, 1874. Owen, ch. 19. Turrettin, Loc. xvii, Qu. i. Dick, Lect. 72. Watson, ch. 23. ^ 3.

/^UR last attempt was to prove that the meritorious cause of the believer's justification is the righteousness of Christ. But how comes it that this righteousness mpu a ion. avails for US, or that its justifying efficacy is

made ours ? The answer to this question leads us to the doc- trine of imputation. The Catechism says that Christ's righteous- ness is imputed to us. This Latin word, to reckon or account to any one, is sometimes employed in the English Scriptures as the translation of ^Ii.'n. ^^op^o/iac, iXkoyiio, and correctly. Of

- T

the former we have instances in Gen. xv : 6; xxxviii : 15; 2 Sam. xix : 19 ; of the next in Mark xv : 28 ; Rom. ii : 26; iv : 5. &c. ; Gal. iii : 6, &c. ; and of the last, in Rom. v : 1 3 ; Philem. 1 8.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 64I

It is evident that sometimes the thing imputed is what is

actually done by, or belonsfs personally to.

Defined. Owen,, ^ 4-V -^.-i j \.

Criticised. ^^^^ person to whom it is reckoned, or set

over. (This is what Turrettin calls imputa- tion loosely so called). Sometimes the thing imputed belonged to, or was done by another, as in Philem. 18 ; Rom. iv : 6. This is the imputation which takes place in the sinner's justification. It maybe said, without affecting excessive subtlety of definition, that by imputation of Christ's righteousness, we only mean that Christ's righteousness is so accounted to the sinner, as that he receives thereupon the legal consequences to which it entitles. In accordance with 2 Cor. v : 21, as well as with the dictates of sound reason, we regard it as the exact counterpart of the im- putation of our sins to Christ. Owen does, indeed, deny this : asserting that the latter only produced a temporary change in Christ's legal state, and that He was able speedily to extinguish the claims of law against our guilt, and return to His glory ; while the former so imputes His very righteousness as to make a final and everlasting change in our legal relations. We reply : the difference is not in the kind of imputation, but in the per- sons. The mediatorial Person was so divine and infinite, that temporary sufferings and obedience met and extinguished all the legal claims upon Him. Again : Owen pleads that we must suppose Christ's very righteousness, imputed to us, in another sense than our sins are to Him ; because, to talk of imputing to us the legal consequences of His righteousness, such as pardon, &c., is nonsensical, pardon being the result of the imputation. But would not the same reasoning prove as well, that not only our guilt, but our very sinfulness must have been imputed to Christ ; because it is nonsensical to talk of imputing condemnation ! The truth is, the thing set over to our account, in the former case, is in strictness of speech, the title to the consequences of pardon and acceptance, founded on Christ's righteousness, as in the latter case it was the guilt of our sins — i. e., the obligation to punishment founded on our sinfulness. All are agreed that, when the Bible says, " the iniquity of us all was laid on Christ," or that " He bare our sins," or " was made sin for us," it is only our guilt and not our moral attribute of sinfulness which was imputed. So it seems to me far more reasonable and scriptural.to suppose that, in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, it is not the attribute of righteousness in Christ which is imputed, but that which is the exact counterpart of guilt — the title to acquittal. Owen, in proceeding to argue against objections, strongly states that impu- tation does not make the sinner personally and actually right- eous with Christ's righteousness as a quality. We should like, then, to know what he means, when saying that this righteous- ness is really and truly imputed to us in a more literal sense than our sins were to Christ. A middle ground is to me invisible. 41*

642 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The basis on which this imputation proceeds, is our union

^ . ^ ^ .^ to Christ. There is, first, our natural union Basis of Tustifica- i.-^ i.- tt- i_ r

jion. constituting Him a member 01 our race ; a

man as truly as we are men. But this, though an essential prerequisite, is not by itself enough ; for if so, mere humanity would constitute every sinner a sharer in His righteousness. There must be added our mystical union, in which a legal and spiritual connection are established by God's sovereign dispensation, making Him our legal and our spiritual Head, Thus imputation becomes proper.

When we attempt to prove this imputation, we are met . with the assertion, by Arminians and theo- ture? ^ ^^^" '^"^' logians of the New England School, that there is no instance in the whole Bible of anything imputed, except that which the man personally does or possesses himself; so that there is no Scriptural warrant for this idea of transference of righteousness as to its legal con- sequences. We point, in reply, to Philem. 18, and to Rom. iv : 6. If God imputeth to a man righteousness without works, and his faith cannot literally be this imputed righteousness, as we have abundantly proved, we should like to know where that imputed righteousness comes from. Certainly it cannot come personally from the sinner who is without works. The whole context shows that it is Christ's. But how sorry an artifice is it to seize on the circumstances that the word Xoyc^sad^at happens not to be immediately connected -with Christ's name in the same sentence, when the idea is set forth in so many phrases ? More- over, as Turrettin remarks, every case of pardoned guilt is a case (see 2 Sam. xix : 19), of this kind of imputation : for some- thing is reckoned to the sinner — i. e., legal innocency, or title to immunity, which is not personally his own.

The direct arguments for the imputation of Christ's right- „ ^ ^ , eousness are: 1st. The counterpart imputa-

Proofs, Farther. , . r m, , tt- /ti jut

tion 01 our guilt to Him. (Proved by is. hii : 5, 6, 12 ; Heb. ix : 28 ; i Pet. ii : 24, &c). For the princi- ples involved are so obviously the same, and the one transaction so obviously the procurer of the other, that none who admit a proper imputation of human guilt to Christ, will readily deny an imputation of His righteousness to man. Indeed both are conclusively stated in 2 Cor. v : 21. The old Reformed expo- sition of this important passage, by some of our divines, was to read, " Christ was made a sin-offering for us." The objection is: that by this view no counterpart is presented in the counter- part proposition : " we are made the righteousness of God in Him." It is obvious that St. Paul uses the abstract for the con- crete. Christ was made a sinner for us, that we might be made righteous persons in Him. The senses of the two members of the parallelism must correspond. There is no other tenable sense than this obvious one — that our guilt (obligation to pen-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 643

•alty) was imputed to Christ, that His righteousness (title to reward) might be imputed to us. 2d. Christ is said to be our righteousness. Jer. xxiii : 6 ; i Cor. i : 30, &c., expressions which can only be honestly received, by admitting the idea of imputation. 3d. By " His obedience many are constituted righteous ; " {xazaazadr^aoi^rac). Here is imputation. So we might go through most of the passages cited to prove that we are justified on account of Christ's righteousness, and show that they all involve the idea of imputation. Indeed, how else can the legal consequences of His righteousness become ours ? To see the force of all these, we have onlj^ to remember that all who deny imputation, also deny that Christ's righteousness is the sole meritorious giound, thus plainly implying that the latter necessarily involves the former. 4th. Imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is argued by Paul in Rom v, from imputa- tion of Adam's sin to us.

Objections have been strenuously urged against this doc-

„, . . c 1 J trine, of which the most grave is that it encour- Obiections bolved. ' . . r i- • --ni • -hi

ages licentiousness 01 living. iiiis will be separatly considered under § xv. It has again been urged that it is impious, in representing Christ as personally the worst Being in the universe as bearing all the sins of all believers; and false to fact, in representing His act in assuming our law place as the act which drew down God's wrath on Him ; whereas it was an act of lovely benevolence, according to the Calvinistic view of it; and also false, as representing the sinner as personally holy at the very time his contrition avows him to be vilest. The answer is, that all these objections mistake the nature of imputation, which is not a transfer of moral char- acter, but of legal relation. And Christ's act in taking our law place was a lovely act. In strictness of speech, it was not this act which drew down His Father's wrath, (but His love — Jno. x: 17), but the guilt so assumed. For the discussion of more subtile objection, that guilt must be as untransferable as personal demerit, because it is the consequence of demerit alone, — see Lect. xliv.

The important principle has already been stated, that jus- tification must be as complete as its merito- Com" jJ^"^* rious ground. Since faith is only the instru-

ment of its reception, the comparative weak- ness or strength of faith will not determine any degrees of justi- fication in different Christians. Feeble faith which is living truly leads to Christ, and Christ is our righteousness alone. Our justifying righteousness is in Christ. The office of faith, is simply to be the instrument for instituting the union of the believing soul to Him ; so that it may " receive of His fullness grace for grace." Suppose in men's bodies a mortal disease, of which the perfect cure was a shock of electricity, received from some exhaustless " receiver," by contact. One man discover-

644- SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ing his mortal taint, but yet a little enfeebled, rushes to the electrical receiver and claps his hand swiftly upon it, with all the force of a violent blow. He receives his shock, and is saved. Another, almost fainting, can only creep along the floor with the greatest difficulty, and has barely strength to raise his lan- guid hand and lay it on the "receiver." He also derives the same shock, and the same healing. The power is in the elec- tricity, not in the impact of the two hands. Hence, also, it will follow that justification is an instantaneous act, making at once a complete change of legal condition. See Rom. iii : 22 ; Jno. iii : 36; V : 24; Rom. viii : i, 32 and 34 ; Col. ii : 9, 10; Heb. x : 14; Micah. vii : 19 ; Jer. i : 20; Ps. ciii : 12, &c. And this legal com- pleteness, it is too evident to need proof, begins when the sinner believes, and at no other time.

But here two distinctions must be taken — one between the completeness of title, and completeness of

But Sense and Fruits possession as to the benefits of our iustifica- of it may Grow. J^ ..-■'..

tion; the other between our justification in

God's breast, and our own sense and consciousness thereof. On the latter distinction, we may remark : as our faith strengthens, so will the strength of our apprehension of a justi- fied state grow with it. The former also may, to some extent, be affected by the increase of our faith. God may make that increase the occasion of manifesting to the soul larger measures of favour and grace. But the soul is not one whit more God's accepted child then, than when it first believed. We have seen that the thing which, strictly speaking, is imputed, is the title to all the legal consequences of Christ's righteousness — i. e , title to pardon and everlasting adoption, with all the included graces. Now, the acknowledged and legitimate son of a king is a prince, though an infant. His status and inheritance are royal, and sure ; though he be for a time under tutors and gov- ernors, and though he may gradually be put into possession of one and another, of his privileges, till his complete majority. So the gradual possession of the benefits of justification does not imply that our acquisition of the title is gradual.

These views may assist us in the intricate subject of the

relation which justification bears to the Re^SlWrS:" b'^Iiever's future sins On the one hand these

things are evident ; that there is not a man on the earth who does not offend, (Jas. iii : 2), that sin must always be sin in its nature, and as such, abhorrent to God, by whomsoever comriiitted ; and even more abhorrent in a believer, because committed against greater obligations and vows ; and that sins committed after justification need expiation, just as truly as those before. On the other hand, the proofs above given clearly show, that the justified believer does not pass again under condemnation when betrayed into sin. Faith is the instrument for continuing, as it was for originating our justified

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 645

-state. This is clear from Rom. xi : 20; Heb. x: 38, as well as from the experience of all believers, who universally apply- afresh to Christ for cleansing, when their consciences are oppressed with new sin. In strictness of speech, a man's sin must be forgiven after it is committed. Nothing can have a relation before it has existence, so that it is illogical to speak of sin as pardoned before it is committed. How, then, stands the sinning believer, between the time of a new sin and his new application to Christ's cleansing blood ? We reply : Justifica- tion is the act of an immutable God, determining not to impute sin, through the believer's faith. .This faith, though not rn instant exercise at every moment, is an undying principle in the believer's heart, being rendered indefectible only by God's purpose of grace, and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. So. God determines, when the believer sins, not to impute guilt for Christ's sake, which determination also implies this other, to secure in the believer's heart, the unfailing actings of faith and re- pentance, as to all known sin. So that his justification from future sins is not so much a pardoning of them before they are commit- ted, as an unfailing provision by God both of the meritorious and instrumental causes of their pardon, as they are committed. There are two qualified senses, in which we are said to be justified at the judgment-day. See Acts iii : Ju?gS.rnt^d:}f '' '° ^9-21 ; Matt, xii : 36, 37. Indeed, a forensic act is implied somehow in the very hotion of a judgment-day. First: Then, at length, the benefits of the believer's justification in Christ will be fully conferred, and he will, by the resurrection, be put into possession of the last of them, the redemption of his body. Second : There will be a declaration of the sentence of justification passed when each believer believed, which God will publish to His assembled -creatures, for His declarative glory, and for their instruction. See Malachi iii: 17, 18. This last declarative justification will be grounded on believers' works, (Matt, xxv), and not on their faith, necessarily; because it will be addressed to the fellow- •creatures of the saints, who cannot read the heart, and can only know the existence of faith by the fruits.

That faith alone is the instrument of justification, is ^., ^, , asserted by the Catechism, que. t,t,. The truxJ'en^.^ ^^ P^oof is two-fold : First. That this is the

only act of the soul which, in its character, is receptive of Christ's righteousness. Repentance and other graces are essential, and have their all important relations to other parts of our salvation ; but faith alone is the embracing act, and this alone is the act which contributes nothing, which looks wholly out of self for its object and its efficacy, and thus is compatible with a righteousness without works. Second. All the benefits we receive in Christ are suspended on our union with Him. It is because we are united, and when we

646 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

are united to Him, that we become interested in His blood and righteousness, and in His sanctifying Spirit. But, as we have seen, faith is the instrumental bond of that union. Hence it follows, that our standards are right in saying that justifying righteousness is received by faith alone. Third. It is said in so many forms, that righteousness is by faith ; and, especially is this said most frequently where the technical act of justifica- tion is formally discussed, as separated from the other parts of our salvation. Then there are passages in which this is held up singly, in answer to direct inquiries, as the sole instrumental act ; which do not leave us at liberty to suppose that any other one would have been omitted, if there had been one ; e. g., Jno. vi : 29 ; Acts y^vi : 31.

Yet, it is stienuously objected by some, (even of sound . r^ divines), that in many places repentance is

Connection of Repent- _ 1 r i -i-i r -^i / r

ance Explained. Spoken of, along With faith, as a term of gos-

pel salvation, and in some cases, even to the exclusion of faith. Mark i : 15 ; Luke xiii : 3 ; Acts xx : 21 ; and especially, Acts ii : 38 ; iii : 19. The chief force is in the last two. As to the previous ones, it is very obvious that to make repentance necessary to salvation, does not prove that it performs this particular work in our salvation, the instrumental acceptance of a justifying righteousness. We might even say that repentance is a necessary condition of final acceptance,, and yet not make it the instrument ; for there is a sense in which perseverance is such a condition. Heb. x : 38. But to make it the instrument is absurd ; for then no one would be justified till death. But it may be urged, in Acts ii : 38, and iii : 19, repentance is explicitly proposed as in order to remis- sion, which is an element of justification itself We reply: this is not to be pressed ; for thus we should equally prove, Acts ii : 38, that baptism is an instrument of justification ; and, Rom. X : 9, 10, that profession is, equally with living faith, an instrument of justification. These passages are to be recon- ciled to our affirmative proof-texts, by remembering that repen- tance is used in Scripture much more comprehensively than saving faith. It is the whole conversion of the soul to God, the general acting in which faith is implicitly involved. When the Apostle calls for repentance, he virtually calls for faith ; for as the actings of faith imply a penitent frame, so the exercise of repentance includes faith. It is therefore proper, that when a comprehensive answer is demanded to the question, " What must we do ? " that answer should be generally, " Repent," and that when the instrument of justification is inquired after specially, the answer should be, " Believe."

The question once debated : whether faith or good works

be most important to a believer ? is as fool-

jusUfy, y^ Necessa.^! '^h as though one should debate, whether

roots or fruits were most essential to a fruit-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 647

tree. If either be lacking, there is no fruit-tree at all. Good works, when comprehensively understood for all holy actings of heart and hfe, hold the place of supreme importance in our redemption, as the ulterior end, not indeed in any sense the procuring cause, but yet the grand object and purpose. And the dignity of the end is, in one sense, higher than that of the means.

The final cause of God, or ultimate highest end in His view Because they most ^^ .o"*" justification, is His Own glory. The Essential to God'sUlti- chief means or next medium thereto is our mate End. sanctification and good works ; for' God's

nature is holy, and cannot be glorified by sin, except indirectly in its punishment. If we look, then, at His immutable will and glory, we find an imperative demand for holiness and works. If we look next at the interests of God's kingdom as affected by us, we find an equal necessity for our good works : for it is sin which originates all mischief and danger, and disorder to the subjects of God's government. And if we look, third, at our own personal interests and well-being, as promoted by our redemption, we see good works to be equally essential ; because to be sinful is to be miserable ; and true holiness alone is true happiness.

Hence, we find that God in many places mentions redemp- Because all the Plan tion from corruption, rather than redemption of Redemption Incites from guilt, as His prominent object in the '^^^™* Covenant of Grace. See Titus ii : 14 ; Eph.

i : 4 ; V : 25-27 ; i Thess. iv : 3 ; i Jno. iii : 8 ; Matt, i : 21. And all the features of this plan of redemption, in its execution

show that God's prime object is the production of holiness

yea, of hoHness in preference to present happiness, in His peo- ple. The first benefit bestowed, in our union to Christ, is a holy heart. The most constant and prominent gifts, ministered through Christ, are those of sanctification and spiritual strength to do good works. The designs of God's providence cons- tantly postpone the believer's comfort to his sanctification by the means of afflictions. When the question is, to make one of God's children holier, at the expense of his present happi- ness, God never hesitates. Again, the whole gospel system is so constructed as to be not merely an expedient for introducing justification, but a system of moral motives for producing sanc- tification, and that of wondrous power. Let the student look up its elements. And last. This very gospel teems with most urgent injunctions on behevers already justified to keep this law, in all its original strictness and spirituality. See, especi- ally. Matt. V : 17-20 ; Gal. v : 13 ; Rom. vi : 6 ; vii : 6 ; Jno. xiii: 34; I Pet. i : 15, 16, &c.

The law is no longer our rule of justification, but it is still our rule of living.

We have reserved to the close the discussion of the objec-

648 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

15. Is Justification tioii, that this doctrine of justification, by by Grace Licentious in faith on Christ's righteousness, tends to Tendency ? loosen the bonds of the moral law. There

are two parties who suggest this idea — the legalists, who urge it as an unavoidable objection to our doctrine ; and the Anti- nomians, who accept it as a just consequence of the doctrine. Both classes may be dealt with together, except as to one point growing out of the assertion that Christ fulfilled the preceptive, as well as bore the penal law in our stead. If this be so, says the Antinomian, how can God exact obedience of the believer, as an essential of the Christian state, without committing the unrighteousness of demanding payment of the same debt twice over ? I reply, that it is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt. In explaining the doctrine of substitution, I showed that God's acceptance of our Surety's work in our room was wholly an optional and gracious act with Him, because Christ's vica- rious work, however well adapted to satisfy the law in oui stead, did not necessarily and naturally extinguish the claims of the law on us; was not a " legal tender," in such sense that God was obliged either to take that, or lose all claims. Novv% as God's accepting the substitutionary righteousness at all was an act of mere grace, the extent to which He shall accept it depends on His mere will. And it can release us no farther than He graciously pleases to allow. Hence, if He tells us, as He does, that He does not so accept it, as to release us from the law as a rule of living, there is no injustice.

We preface further, that the objection of the legalist pro- ceeds upon the supposition, that if the motives of fear and self- interest for obeying God be removed, none will be left. But are these the only motives ? God forbid.

Indeed, we assert that the plan of justification by faith

^ , c f-f,- leaves all the motives of self-interest and

°' " ' fear, which could legitimately and usefully

operate on a soul under the Covenant of Works, in full force ;

and adds others, of vast superiority. Rom. iii : 31.

The motives of self-interest and fear remain, so far as they properly ought to operate on a renewed soul. Seff-lnterest Remains! (a) While " eternal life is the gift of God," the measure of its glories is our works. See Luke xix : 17-19 ; Matt, x : 42 ; 2 Cor. ix : 6. Here is a mo- tive to do as many good works as possible, (b) Work? remain, although deposed from the meritorious place as our justifica- tion, of supreme importance as the object and end. Hence, (c) they are the only adequate test of a justified state, as proved above. Thus, the conscience of the backslider should be as much stimulated by the necessity of having them, as though they were to be his righteousness. It is as important to the gratuitous heir of an inheritance to preserve hi.-, evidence

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 649

of title, as it was to the purchaser, to be furnished with money enough to pay for the estate.

2. The gospel shows its superior efficiency over a system

of legality, in producing holy living, in this ait uri es. respect ; that its instrument in justification is

a living faith. A dead faith does not justify. Now, it is the nature of a justifying faith to give an active response to the vitalizing energy of God's truth. It is granted that the truth, which is the immediate object of its actings unto justification, is Christ's redemption ; but its nature ensures that it shall be vitally sensitive to all God's truth, as fast as apprehended. Now, the precepts are as really divine truth, the proper object of this vital action of a living faith, as the promises. Such is the teaching of our Confession in that instructive passage, ch. xiv, § 2. " By this faith a Christian believeth to be true what- soever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein, and acteth differently, upon that which each passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedience to the com- mands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the prom- ises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and rest- ing upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the Covenant of Grace." The soul is not made alive in patches. It is alive all over. That principle of faith, therefore, which actively responds to the promise, responds just so, likewise, to the precepts : especially as precepts and promises are so intertwined, See Ps. xxxii : i, 2 ; Rom. viii : i. (b). The gospel is efficient in producing holy living, because

it gives the strongest possible picture of the Love.^^^ ppeas o ^^^ ^^ ^-^^^ ^^ God's inflexible requisition of

a perfect righteousness, and of His holiness, (c). Above all, it generates a noble, pure and powerful motive for obedience, love begotten by God's goodness in redemption. And here, the peculiar glory of the gospel, as a religion for sinners, appears. I believe that the justified believer should have motives to holy living, which if their whole just force were felt, would be more operative than those which Adam in innocence could have felt under the Covenant of Works. See above. But when we consider that man is no longer innocent, but naturally condemned and depraved, under wrath, and fun- damentally hostile to God, we see that a Covenant of Works would now be, for him, infinitely inferior in its sanctifying influ- ences. For the only obedience it could evoke from such a heart, would be one slavish, selfish, and calculated — i. e., no true heart obedience at all — but a mere trafficking with God for self-interest. Now, contrast with this an obedience of love, and of gratitude, which expects to purchase nothing thereby from God, because all is already given, freely, graciously ; and therefore obeys with ingenuous love and thankfulness. How

650 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

much more pleasing to God ! And last ; Love is a principle of action as permanent and energetic, as it is pure. Witness even th-" human examples of it. When we look to those social affections, which have retained their disinterestedness (towards man) through the corruptions of our fall, we see there the most influential, as well as the purest principles of human action, the springs of all that is most energetic, and persevering, as well as most generous.

We sometimes hear the legalists, of various schools, say : "A correct knowledge of human nature will erative!' ^ °^ ^' ^^^^^ "s, that if the principles of fear and self-interest are removed from man's religious obedience, he will render none ; for these are the main springs of human action." We do not represent the gospel scheme as rejecting the legitimate action of those springs. But their view of human nature is false ; fear and self-interest are not its most energetic principles. Many a virtuous son and daughter render to an infirm parent, who has no ability or will to punish, and no means of rewarding save with his blessing, a service more devoted, painful, and continued, than the rod ever exacted from a slave. Indeed, slavery itself showed, by the occasional instances of tyranny, which occurred, that fear was an inade- quate principle ; the rod by itself never secured industry and prosperity on a plantation ; but the best examples of success were always those, where kindnesss was chiefly relied on, (with a just and firm authority), to awaken in the slaves affection and cheerful devotion. The sick husband receives from his wife, without wages, nursing more assiduous than any hire can extort from the mercenary professional nurse. And above all, does the infant, helpless to reward or punish, exact from the mother's love and pity, a service more punctilious and toilsome, than was ever rendered to an eastern sultan by the slave with the scime- tar over his head ?

Suppose, then, that the all-powerful Spirit of God, employ- ing the delightful truths of gospel grace as His instrument, produces in believers a love and gratitude as genuine as these instinctive affections, and more sacred and strong, as directed towards a nobler object ; has He not here a spring of obedi- ence as much more efficacious, as it is more generous, than the legalists ?

" Talk they of morals ? O Thou bleeding Love, The great morality is love to Thee ! "

When, therefore, these heretics object, that justification by free grace will have licentious results ; God's answer is ; that He will provide against that, by making the faith which justifies also a principle of life, which " works by love."

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. x: 38
  2. Malachi iii: 17

SYLLABUS

1. What two kinds of Repentance in Scripture; and distinguished by what two terms ? Are these ever used interchangeably ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 15. Sampson on Heb. xii, 17. Hill, bk. v, ch. 4, ^ i. Calv. Inst. bk. iii, ch. 3. Knapp, ^ 126. Watson Theol. Inst. ch. 24, ^ i. Breckinridge, Theol. Subjective, bk. iii, ch. 14.

2. What do divines mean by legal ; and what by evangelical Repentance ? Of what must we repent ?

Ridgley, Qu. 76. Calvin as above.

3. Who is the Author of Repentance ; and does it precede or follow Regenera- tion.

Calvin, as above, Ridgley, Qu. 76. Watson as above. Knapp, g 127, 128.

4. What are the relations of Faith and Repentance ; and which is prior in the order of Production ?

Calvin, as above, §1,2. Fuller on Sandeman, Letter 5, Watson as above.

5. Is Repentance Atoning ?

Calvin, bk. iii, ch. 4. Dick, Lect. 70. Knapp, § 128. Watson, ch. 19.

6. What are the " fruits meet for Repentance ? " Ridgley and Calvin, as above.

T " REPENTANCE unto Life is an evangelical grace, the • doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ." Conf. xv, i. The brevity, and in some cases neglect, with which this prominent subject is treated by many systems, is surprising and repre- hensible.

In the New Testament there are two classes of words, used

^ , .. ,^ for two exercises, both of which, in the

Definition of Terms, -c ^• -i • 11 j << x. >> .<

English version are called repentance, re- pent." One class is y.szafjiiAofia: [itzaixchca, the other, [JiSTavoicD litrdvoca. The one means, etymologically, after regret, a merely natural feeling ; the other, change of mind after conduct. And the two classes are used in the New Testament with general, or, as I would assert, universal discrimination. The only alleged cases of confusion are Matt, xxi : 32 ; Luke xvii : 3, 4; Heb. xii ; 17. In the first, the verb is tj.zzeiitA7id7jre with accurate and proper reference to the relation between carnal conviction and sorrow, and turning to Christ, as a preparation for the result. Those expositors who will have it to be used here for evangeli- cal repentance, urge, that this alone is vitally connected with saving faith. The chief priests " repented not that they might believe." But give the verb its ordinary meaning : Christ charges on them such obduracy, and self-sufficiency, that they felt not even that carnal sorrow, which is the preliminary step towards true repentance, faith, and conversion. Thus, so far is the ordinary sense from being difficult here, it adds great force to our Saviour's meaning. So in the next case. Luke

651

•652 • SYLLABUS AND NOTES

xvii : 3, 4. In this ixz-a.voia. is used for the professed repentance of an erring, and even a very unstable brother, to show that his profession, so long as it is not absolutely discredited by his bad conduct, is to be taken by the judgment of charity, (i Cor. xiii : 7), as evidence of genuine. Christian sorrow, so far as to secure forgiveness. A profession of mere carnal sorrow would not entitle to it. In the third, the best commentators are agreed that Tb-ov [xtravo'ta.^ refers to a change in Isaac, which the historian indicates, must have been (whatever profane Esau may have hoped) Christian conviction of and sorrow for error ; (otherwise He would not have changed His prophecy). Now, when we see that /jtsvai^oico is used in the New Testament 34, and fievdvoca 24 t,imes=58, and nzxaixklojim and family 7 times, the demarcation made by the sacred writers is very broad.

See this distinction carried out with instructive accuracy in 2 Cor. vii : 8-10, (original). In verse 8th the Apostle says that he had regretted, but now no longer regretted [tj.zTeiJt-).6mv) the writing of the 1st Epistle. He is too accurate to speak of repenting the peformance of a duty, though painful. Verse 9, Now He is glad that the Corinthians sorrowed unto iierdiyoiav. See how accurately he distinguishes sorrow {/-'-^yj) from gracious repentance. Verse 10 tells us that gracious sorrow worketh " repentance unto salvation," which is not to be " regretted " [dntzauiAr^Toi^). Paul is too discriminating to intimate, as the English version does; that true repentance can ever, by any possibility, be subject of repentance — No : folly might per- chance deem it subject of regret ; but, to repent truly of true repentance, would be a contradiction too glaring even for the sinner to entertain.

In the Old Testament two families of words are used for those acts promiscuously expressed in our English version by repent; ^^2^" and its derivatives, and QriJ with its deriva- tives. The latter is used to express both regret and repentance proper, (variously translated by Sept.) ; the former I believe, in its theological uses, always expresses true repentance. *

The Latin Vulgate has lent us a mischievous legacy, in giving us the word " repent " as the rendering of Merdvoecv. " Repentance " is from pcenitet, pcena ; and that from the Greek word Tiotvq. Its English progeny is seen in the word pain ; and its original idea is penalty. See the use of iiocvq ; IpJiigenia in Aulide, for expiatory penalty. No wonder the Latin Church, in the dark ages, slid into the error of regarding penance, as a satisfaction for the guilt of sin ; when it had been taught to call fitzdvotav by such a misnomer as poenitentia. Lactantiiis, (the most elegant in his Latinity, of the Christian fathers), proposes to render it by Resipiscentia, (from nsapio). " Ideoque GrcBci

*Thus Augustine : Pcenitentiam nomen habere a punitione, nt sit quasi ptmi- ■tentia, dum ipsum homo punit pcenitendo, quod male admisit.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 653

melms et significantius p-E'dvonm dicunt, qiiam nos possuvius resipisccntiam die ere!'

I wish that the Enghsh tongue had enabled our version to distinguish the two exercises uniformly by two distinct words.

Mixaixklzui is the natural pain consequent on sin, arising in the carnal mind, either with or without the common, convincing influences of the Holy Ghost, and contains three elements, fear and dread of the danger incurred, shame, and remorse or invol- untary self-condemnation of conscience denouncing the sin. It is a purely selfish emotion ; but it is still the emotion of a moral nature, and implies a conscience ; though compatible with an entire preference of will for sin.

For nezdvoca, (See Shorter Cat., qu. d>y. Conf., xv, § 2). It involves the two elements of the former; but it includes chiefly another ; viz : " a sight and sense of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God." There is not only that painful sense of wrong doing inflicted by conscience on the sinner; con- science, which a depraved will, although fully set on transgres- sion, cannot corrupt nor wholly silence. But there is the pain arising from a true hatred of sin, now existing in the will, as a moral disposition and principle, and from the preference for, and love of conformity to God, arising out of a thorough approval of and complacency in His moral perfection. Of course, this hatred of sinfulness and appetency of holiness, are not two principles, but one, expressing its spontaneous nature as to two opposite objects — sin and righteousness. And last, that view of the odiousness of sin, and attractiveness of godliness, proceeds chiefly in the believer's experiences, from the Cross; from the exhibitions of mercy, purity, goodness, and hope there made. True repentance may be defined as the moral emotion and act of the regenerate nature towards its personal sinfulness, and towards godliness, especially as the two are exhibited in the Cross.

The terms Legal and Evangelical Repentance have been used by divines with a mischievous uncer- anc'eWhat^? ^P^"^" tainty. By some, legal repentance is defined as though identical with fitzanklzia. If this were really the distinction, the terms would be unnecessary. Paul gives us better ones in 2 Cor. vii : 10 : The "sorrow of the world," and "and godly sorrow." But other divines, perceiv- ing a truer and more accurate distinction in the actings of godly sorrow itself, have employed the phrases in a useful sense. These, by legal repentance, mean a genuine sorrow for sin, including both fear of its dangers, and conscience of its wrongness, and also loathing of its odiousness, with a thorough justifying and approving of God's holy law ; a sorrow wrought by the Holy Ghost, but wrought by Him only through the instrumentality of the convincing Law, and unaccompanied

654 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

with conscious hopes of mercy in Christ. By EvangeHcal Repentance they mean that godly sorrow for sin, which is wrought by the renewing Spirit, inchiding the above actings, but also, and chiefly, the tender sorrow combined with hopes of mercy proceeding from appropriating faith, when the believer " looks on Him whom he hath pierced," and sees there at once a blessed way of deliverance, and a new illustration of God's love, and his own aggravated vileness. This, in a word, is the repentance of the Catechism, Qu. 87,

In completing our view of the nature of repentance, the

question presents itself: Of what should man Orig?narsin^^^^"' °^ repent? The general answer, of course,

must be : Of all sin. Is it man's duty, then, to repent of original sin? If we say, no, the Arminian will press us with this consequence : " If it is not your personal duty to repent of it, you imply that you are not in earnest in saying that it is truly and properly sin." Yet, how can a man feel personally blameworthy (an essential element of repentance) for an act committed by another, without his consent, and before he was born ! We reply : " The sinfulness of that estate into which man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin." The Christian will, of course, regret the guilt of Adam's first sin, but not repent of it. But of the corruption of nature, of the concupis- cence and inordinate desire of our hearts, it is our duty to repent, to feel blameworthy for them, to sorrow for, and to strive against them, just as of actual transgression; for this is not only our guilt, (imputed), but our proper sin.

Again, Conf., xv : § 5, men ought not only to repent of their

sinfulness, both of heart and life, as a general Of Particular Sins, quality, but also of particular sins, so far as they are known, with a particular repentance. Repentance is the medium of sanctification, and sin is only conquered by us in detail. There is no other way for a finite creature to fight the good fight of faith. Hence, it is obvious, every conscious, and especially every known recent transgression should be made the subject of particular repentance. The impenitent man can- not be forgiven. What, then, shall we answer concerning those unconscious and forgotten transgressions (probably the " secret sins " of Ps. xix : 12), to which the attention and recollection of even the honest penitent never advert, in consequence of the lim- itation of his faculties and powers? We answer, that each Chris- tian is aware of his guilt of these forgotten faults, and grieves over the general fact that he has them. And this general repentance is accepted ; so that the atonement of Christ blots them out of God's book of remembrance.

After this definition of repentance, it need hardly be added, that it is not only an act, to be performed at the beginning of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 655

conversion, and then to be dismissed as complete, but also a life-long work, proceeding from an abiding temper of soul. The saint is a penitent, until he reaches heaven.

If we confound worldy with godly sorrow, or if we take a . Pelagian view of human nature, we may of New^Bkth!"'^^ ^^^^ indeed ascribe true repentance to the unaided workings of the natural heart. But if repent- ance is understood as above, we shall see that while it is a duty for man to exercise, it is still one to which he must be moved by the supernatural grace of God. Hence, the Scriptures always represent it as God's gift or work. See New Testament first, as plainest: Actsv: 31: xi: 18; 2 Tim. ii : 25. In Old Testa- ment: Ps. Ixxx: 3,7,19; Ixxxv: 4; Jer. xxxi: 18; Ezek. xi : 19. Nor can these texts be evaded by saying, that God is the Author of repentance only mediately, by teaching that Gospel which inculcates and prompts repentance. In several of them,, those who are already possessed of the Gospel means, pray to God to work repentance in them ; and in 2 Tim. ii : 25, there is a " peradventure " whether God will give a heart to repent, to those to whom Timothy was to give the light ; showing that the grace of repentance is a separate and divine gift.

But let any one look at the Scriptural definition of Repent- ance, and he will be convinced that none but a regenerate heart is competent to the exercise. The true penitent not only feels the danger of his sins, and the involuntary sting of a conscience, which he would disarm if he could ,but an ingenuous sorrow for the sinfulness of his sin, and a sincere desire for godliness. Can any one feel this but a regenerate soul? Can he who hates God thus grieve for having wounded His holy law; can he who loves sin as the native food of his soul, thus loathe it for its own sake ! No one feels godly sorrow, but he who is passed from death unto life.

But the Arminians, while avowing that repentance is the » . . ^^. . work of the Holy Ghost, assert that it

Arminian Obiections i.uiijj.i-'ir

to this. Answer. ^^^^ "^ held to begm before regeneration

in the order of production, as they also hold concerning faith and justification. Their reasons are two. First : we are taught (e. g., Ps. Ii : 10), to pray for regeneration. But prayer, to be acceptable, must be sincere ; and a sincere request for a holy heart implies, or presupposes, repentance for ungodliness. And second : repentance must be presupposed in faith, because to fly to Christ as a refuge from sin presupposes a sense of sin. But justification, secured by faith, must precede regeneration ; because God cannot be supposed to bestow the beginning of communion in the Holy Ghost, and what is sub- stantially eternal life, on a rebel before he is reconciled to Him. Thus, they suppose Rom. vii, to describe repentance; Rom. vii : 24, 25, the dawnings of saving faith; Rom. viii: i, first clause, the justification consequent thereon; and viii: i, last clause,

656 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the beginning of spiritual life. Now, to both objections, we reply that their plausibility is chiefly due to the oversight of this fact, that the priority of one over another of these several steps, is only one of production, or causation, and not of time. Practically, every one who is regenerate is then, in principle, penitent, and believing, and justified. And since all parts are of God's grace, is it not foolish to say that His righteousness or His wrath forbids Him to bestow this before that, seeing His grace permits neither to precede in time, and none to be lack- ing? But on the first objection we remark, farther, if we must need rationalize about it, it is at least as great an anomaly, that a man should feel a sincere desire for godliness, while his nature remained prevalently ungodly, as it is that an ungodly pra}'er for a new heart should be answered by the heart-searching God. The objection derives its seeming force from a synergistic the- ory of regeneration. But, in truth, no true spiritual desire can exist till God has actually renewed the will. God must do the work, not man. And God must savingly begin it, unasked by man. This is sovereign grace. That a man should hold this theory, and yet pray for a new heart, is no greater paradox than that the hope our sins are pardoned should encourage us to pray for pardon. The truth is, the instincts of a pre-existent spiritual life find their natural expression in a breathing after spiritual life. To the second objection we reply : if it seems anomalous that God should anticipate His reconciliation to the condemned sinner, by bestowing that gift of a new heart, which virtually constitutes eternal life, it would be equally anomalous that He should anticipate the bestowal of peace, by bestowing those essential gifts of faith and repentance, to which eternal blessedness is inevitably tied by the Gospel. Must not the Arminian, just as much as the Calvinist, fall back, for his solu- tion of these difficulties, upon the glorious fact, that Christ hath deserved all these saving gifts for His people ? To him who believes an unconditional election, there is no difficulty here ; because he believes that these saving gifts are all pledged to the believing sinner, not only before he fulfills any instrumental con- ditions, but before he is born. There is no difficulty in it all to God ; because all is of grace.

The relations of faith and repentance inter se, as to the

order of production, are important to an

4 Which Precedes ; understanding of conversion. Both these

Faith or Repentance : ° . . , 1 ^

graces are the exercises 01 a regenerate heart

alone ; they presuppose the new birth. Now, Calvin, with per- haps the current of Calvinistic divines, says, that "repentance not only immediately follows faith, but is produced by it." Again : " When we speak of faith as the origin of repentance, we dream not of any space of time which it employs in produc- ing it ; but we intend to signify that a man cannot truly devote himself to repentance, unless he knows himself to be of God."

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 657

And this, he adds, only becomes known by appropriating faith. The view usually urged is, that the convicted sinner cannot exercise that tender and affectionate sorrow for sin, which involves a true love to God, until he entertains some hope that God loves him, in Christ.. They quote such passages as Ps. cxxx : 4; I Jno. iv : 19. Before hope of mercy dawns, they argue there can be nothing but stubborn remorse and despair, after the example of Jer. xviii: 12, Now there is a fair sense in which all this is true ; and that, no doubt, the sense in which it commended itself to the minds of those great and good men. But there is also a great danger of holding it in an erro- neous and mischievous sense. In what we have to say, guard- ing these views, let us premise that we make no priority of time in the order of repentance and faith ; and no gap of duration between the birth of the one or the other. Either implies the other, in that sense. Nor do we dream of the existence of such a thing as a penitent unbeliever, nor suppose that there is any other means of producing repentance than the preaching of the gospel. Repentance can exist nowhere except where God works it. In rational adults He works it only by means, and that means is the gospel revelation; none other. Nor do we retract one word of what we said as to the prime efficiency of the doctrine of the cross, and of the hope, gratitude, love, ten- derness, and humiliation, which faith draws therefrom, as means for cultivating repentance. But in our view it is erroneous to represent faith as existing irrespective of penitence, in its very first acting, and as begetting penitence through the medium of hope. On the contrary, we believe that the very first acting of faith implies some repentance, as the prompter thereof. True, the two twin graces ever after stimulate each other recipro- cally ; but the man begins to believe because he has also begun to repent.

The reasons are : first, that the other view gives a degrad- .. ing and mercenary character to repentance ;

as though the sinner selfishly conditioned his willingness to feel aright concerning his sin, on the previous assurance of impunity. It is as though the condemned felon should say : " Let me go free, and I will sincerely avow that I have done very wrong. But if I am to swing for it, I will neither acknowledge guilt, nor say, " God bless my country." Is this ingenuous repentance ? Is this the experience of the contrite heart? No ; its language always is: (Ps. h, pt. i, v. 5 :)

" Sh-^-'ild sudden vengeance seize my breath, I must pronounce Thee just in death ; And if my soul is sent to hell. Thy righteous law approves it well."

Second. Godly sorrow for sin must be presupposed or implied in the first actings of faith, because faith embraces Christ as a Saviour from sin. See Cat., que. 86, last clause especially.

42*

658 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Surely the Scriptures do not present Christ to our faith only, or even mainly, as a way of impunity. See Matt, i: 21 ; Acts iii : 26; Titus ii; 14. As we have pointed out, the most charac- teristic defect of a dead faith, is, that it would quite heartily embrace Christ as God's provision for immunity in sin: but God offers Him to faith for a very different purpose, viz : for restoration to holiness, including immunity from wrath as one of the secondary consequences thereof. (Hence, we must demur at Owen's declaration, that the special object of saving faith is only Christ in His priestly, and not in His kingly and prophetic offices.) But now, a man does not flee from an evil, except as a consequence of feeling it an evil. Hence, there can be no embracing of Christ with the heart, as a whole pres- ent Saviour, unless sin be felt to be in itself a present evil; and there be a genuine desire to avoid it as well as its penalty. But does not such a desire imply a renewal of the will ? This view has appeared so unavoidable to many who go with Calvin, that they have admitted, " Legal repentance precedes, but Evan- gelical repentance follows faith and hope." (See above pp. 653, 654.) But does not such a legal repentance imply the new birth? Does any man thus justify and revere the very law which condemns him, and regard the Divine character, while devoid, as he supposes, of hope in its favour, with new and adoring approbation, while yet his carnal mind is enmity against God? Surely not. The error of their argument is in supposing that this legal repentance was the exercise of an unrenewed heart.

Third : Some passages of Scripture imply the order I have assigned ; and I am not aware of any which contradict it. See Mark i: 15; Actsii:3g; v:3i; xx:2i; 2 Tim. ii: 25, especi- ally the last.

In a word. Repentance and Faith are twin graces, both implicitly contained in the gift of the new Grli^^ """^ '^'^'" heart; and they cannot but co-exist. Repent- ance is the right sense and volition which the renewed heart has of its sin ; faith is the turning of that heart from its sin to Christ. Repentance feels the disease, faith embraces the remedy. But when we inquire for the first con- ^ scious acting of faith or repentance after the instant of the new birth, the result is decided by the object to which the soul hap- pens to be first directed. If the object of its first regenerate look be its own ungodliness, the first conscious exercise will be one of repentance; but just so surely as the volition is, potentially, in the preponderating motive, so surely does that soul look from its ungodliness to Christ, the remedy of it; it may be unconsciously at first, but in due time, consciously. Or if Christ be the first object to which the new-born soul looks, its first act may be one of trust and joy in Him. Yet that trust

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 659

implies a sense of the evil of sin, as the thing for deliverance from which Christ is trusted.

The exercise of repentance, while absolutely necessary in

all who are saved, creates no atoning merit ;

5. Repentance not ^^^ constitutes no ground whatever in justice,

why the penitent should have remission of

his sins. See Conf,, xv : 3. The carnal mind here labours under

an obstinate delusion ; and how often are pastors told, even by

those who desire to profess themselves Christians, " That they

hope their sins are pardoned, because they have repented ?"

Hence, importance.

A moral fitness which demands that no impenitent person shall be pardoned, is here mistaken for rgumen . another thing. Now, the ground of that

moral fitness is this : that, pardon having otherwise been made just, God's holiness and majesty may have some practical assurance, in the state of the sinner's own feelings, against his repetition of his sins. But this end does not express the whole intent of God's law ; if it did, the law would be a mere expedi- ency, unworthy of God. Its true object is, to express and sus- tain His immutable hohness. It demands perfect and perpetual obedience. Repentance is not obedience. This leads.

Second, to the remark, that repentance is no reparation whatever for past disobedience. It cannot place the sinner, in the eye of the law, in the position of Him who has never sinned. It has in itself no relevancy to repairing the mischiefs the sin has inflicted. Thus men judge. To the man who had injured you, you would say : Your repentance is very proper ; but it cannot recall the past, or undo that which is done.

Third : Indeed, what is a repentance but a feeling of ill- desert, and consequent guilt? Confession is its language. Now, can a man pay a just debt by his acknowledgments of its justice? It is a contradiction, which would lead us to this absurdity ; that the more thoroughly unworthy a man felt, the more worthy he would thereby become.

Fourth : Repentance after transgression is a work. Acts xvii: 30. So that justification by repentance would be a justi- fication by works; and all the principles of Luke xvii: 10; Rom. iii : 28, apply to it.

But last : Repentance is as much a gift of God (Acts v : 31), as the remission which it is supposed to purchase. This settles the matter. While, therefore, the impenitent cannot be justi- fied, yet the sole ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

The Scriptures command us to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." These fruits will, in gen-

R^' mance ^^^^ ^°^ ^^^^' ^'^^^"'^^ ^^^ ^0^7 living; for repentance

*^*" ^ ' is a " turning unto God from sin, with full

purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience." But there

660 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

are certain acts which are essentially dictated by repentance and which proceed immediately from the attitude of penitence.

1. Sincere penitence must lead to confession. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." See Prov. xxviii : 13. The highest form of this duty is the confession of all our sins to God, in secret prayer. True repentance will always thus utter itself to Him. Then, if our sins have scan- dalized the Church, we must also make public confession of the particular sins which have produced this result. Again, if our sin is immediately aimed at our fellow-man, and know'n to him, repentance must lead to confession to him.

2. The next consequence of repentance will be, to prompt us to make reparation of our sin, wherever it is practicable. He who truly repents, wishes his sin undone. But if he truly wishes it undone, he wall, of course, undo it if in his power.

3. The next fruit of repentance must be holy watchful- ness against its recurrence. This is too obvious to need proof See 2 Cor. vii :ii, as admirably expounded by Calvin, Insti- tutes, Bk. 3, ch. 3, § 15.

The worthless distinction of Rome between attrition and contrition, and the assigning of a religious value to the for- mer, are sufficiently refuted by what precedes. Nor does the duty of auricular confession, so called, find any Scriptural sup- port plausible enough to demand discussion. As to her* ascet- ical exercises of penitence, they are the inventions of fanaticism and spiritual pride. The mortification which Scripture enjoins, is that of the sins, and not of the unreasoning members.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Jer. xxxi: 18
  2. Jer. xviii: 12
  3. Mark i: 15
  4. 2 Tim. ii: 25
  5. Luke xvii: 10

SYLLABUS

1. State the usages and meanings of original words rendered " sanctify," and the nature and extent of sanctification.

Shorter Cat., Qu. 35. Conf. of Faith, ch. 13, 16. Lexicons. Turrettin, Loc. xvii, ch. I. Hodge, Theol., pt. iii, ch. i8, ^ I, 2, 3. Dick, Lect. 74.

2. How is sanctification distinguished from, and how related to justification and regeneration ?

Turrettin, Qu. i, g 9 to end. Dick as above. Hill, bk. v, ch. 4, § 2. Knapp, g 116, 126. Ridgicy, Qu. 78.

3. Who is the Agent, and what the means of sanctification? Dick, Lect. 75. Ridgley. Qu. 75.

4. Is sanctification ever perfect in this life ? Consider views of Pelagians, Socin- ians, Wesleyans and recent advocates of " Higher Life."

Turrettin as above, Qu. 2. Hodge, Theol. as above, | 7, 8. Dick. Lect. 74. Hill, bk. V, ch. 4, § 3. Ridgley, Qu. 78. Watson's Theo. Inst., ch. 29.

TN discussing this subject, we turn again to Scripture to settle the meaning of the word. In the Old Testament we find

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 66 1

the word ti^'TD used in the piel and hiphil, to I. Sanctify. Defi- -It ^ ^

nition of. express sanctification. In its lowest sense, it

seems to mean simply separation to a partic- ular purpose, and that purpose not sacred, as Jer. xxii : 7. More frequently it is used in the sense of consecrate, or dedi- cate as priests, utensils, the Sabbath day, where the idea is that of setting apart to a holy use. See Exod. xxviii : 41 ; xxix : 36; Deut. V : 12. But in its proper sense, it means to cleanse away ceremonial, and, especially, moral pollution, 2 Sam xi : 4 ! Num. XV : 40. Kindred to this is the sense where God is said to sanctify Himself, or to be sanctified by His people — i. e., declaratively. Ezek. xxxviii : 23.

In the Greek Scriptures dycd^w is used clearly in all the above senses, to separate, to consecrate, to Testament. °^ ^" ^^ purify morally, and to declare God's holiness. There is a use of this verb, of which the clearest instances are seen in the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially ii : ii ; x : 10, 14 ; xiii : 12, compared with i : 3. Dr. Sampson here renders the word popularly by " redeem." Sin carries two consequences — guilt and pollution — (nearly associ- ciated in the mind of a Hebrew). From the former, Christ's blood cleanses, from the latter, His Spirit. When Christ is said to " sanctify " us by His blood. His sacrifice, &c., it is the for- mer element, cleansing away of guilt, which is intended promi- nently. This is evident from the fact that the verb is used by the Septuagint as the rendering for ISr*? which is strength- ened by the fact that the kindred word xaftafn^w is used for propitiation ; e. g., I Jno. i : 7. See Sampson on Hebrews, i : 3 ; and ii : 1 1,

Sanctification, in the gospel sense, means then, not only

cleansing from guilt, though it presupposes Sanctification is of .1 ■ 1 4.- .1 \ -j. • \ j

the Soul, Proofs, ^^^^^' ^'^^ only consecration, though it includes

' this, nor only reformation of morals and life,

though it produces this ; but, essentially, the moral purification of the soul. This is the great idea to which all the ceremonial sanctity of the typical dispensation pointed ; (see Ps. Ii : 6, 7 ; xxiv : 4, &c.,) and it is yet more emphatically and prominently expressed in the New Testament word (ijva^w. In our discus- sions with Pelagians, we have already shown that their idea is erroneous, viz : that holiness can only be acted by man. We have proved that there must be a previous spring in the princi- ples of the soul, and the dispositions which dictate volitions ; otherwise volitions formally right can have no true holiness. Outward reformation cannot, then, be sanctification ; because the former can only be the consequence thereof; as is well stated in Turrettin, and is clearly implied by Matt, xii : t,t,, 34, &c. This important practical truth may be farther supported by considering, (b) that holiness in man must be conceived as

662 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the counterpart of sin. (The Pelagian admits this). But sin is both original and actual. Sin of heart is the fountain of the sin of life. Hence, it is fair to infer, as our Saviour does, in fact, in the places cited, that sanctification has its seat in the heart. (c) This appears also by the fact, which none will deny, that infants may be subjects of sanctification. They can- not act a sanctification. (d) Again, the synonymous phrases all speak of " a clean heart," of " circumcising the heart," &c. And last, the Scriptures are emphatic in their assertions, i Thess. V : 23 ; Eph. iv : 23, 24 ; Gal. v : 24 ; Titus iii : 5 ; Luke xvii : 21 ; Rom. xiv : 17.

When we inquire after the extent of sanctification, or the

Sanctification is of P^^^s of the human person affected by it, the

the Whole Person. In Catechism answers, that we are renewed " in

What Sense of other the whole man." In I Thess. v : 23, the

Parts than the Heart? a i.i ^i. -j r

Apostle expresses the same idea 01 com- pleteness, by employing the three comprehensive terms of the Platonic psychology current in his day, (not meaning to endorse that scheme). Now, when we analyse that element of human character and of human action, in which moral quality resides, we are compelled to say that, strictly speaking, it is only in the state and actings of man's active powers. If there is neither emotional activity nor choice involved in any human act, that act has no moral character. Hence, in strictness of speech, the true seat of sanctification is the will : the human soul in that class of its actings expressed in Scripture by the word heart. But the Apostle is writing popularly, ^nd not scientifi- cally. The emotional and voluntary capacity of the soul is not a different member, or department of it, from the intellectual. It is the one indivisible unit, acting in different modes.

It is the soul which is sanctified, and not a faculty thereof.

^, ^ , True, that sanctification is only a moral

The Soul hasnoi r.i ^ • -i. ■<,.••.

Parts. change 01 the soul, m its essence ; but in its

results, it modifies every acting of the soul, whether through intellect, appetite, or corporeal volition. Every one would consider that he was speaking with sufficient accuracy in using the words " a wicked thought." Now, in the same sense in which a thought can be wicked, in that sense the power of thinking can be sanctified. What is that sense ? A thought is wicked, not because the faculty of thinking, or pure intellection, is the seat of moral quality, abstractly considered ; but because the soul that thinks, gives to that thought, by the concurrence of its active or emotional, or voluntary power, a complex character, in which complex there is a wrong moral element. To sanctify the intellect, then, is to sanctify the soul in such a way that in its complex acts, the moral element shall be right instead of wrong. So we speak, with entire propriety, of a " wicked blow." The bones, skin, and muscles, which corporeally inflicted it, are the unreasoning and passive imple-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 66^

ment of the soul that emitted the voHtion to strike. But our members are sanctified, when the voHtions which move them are holy ; and when the impressions of sense and appetite, of which they are the inlets, become the occasions of no wrong feelings or volitions.

The sanctification of our bodies consists, therefore, not in . the ascetic mortification of our nerves, mus-

Body^'not Asceticism ?^ cles, glands, &c., but in the employment of the members as the implements of none but holy volitions, and in such management and regulations of the senses, that they shall be the inlets of no objective, or occa- sional causes of wrong feeling. This will imply, of course, strict temperance, continence, and avoidance of temptation to the sinful awakening of appetite, as well as the preservation of muscular vigour, and healthy activity, by self denial and bodily hardihood. See i Cor. ix : 27 ; 2 Pet. ii : 14 ; Jas. iii : 2. But the whole theory of asceticism is refuted by the simple fact, that the soul is the seat of holiness ; and that the body is only indirectly holy or unholy, as it is the tool of the soul. The whole delusion, so far as it has sought a Scriptural support, rests on the mistake of the meaning of the word " flesh," " caro," "adrjq" which the sacred writers use to mean depraved human nature ; not the body. What those fleshly members are, which sanctification mortifies, may be seen in Col. iii : 5 ; Gal. V : 19-21.

Sanctification only matures what regeneration began. 2. Relation of Sane- The latter Sprouted the seed of grace, the tification to New Birth former continues its growth, until there and Justification. appears first the blade, then the ear, then the

full corn in the ear. The agent and influences are therefore the same.

In the order of production, justification precedes sanctifi- cation ; for one of the benefits received by the justified believer, in virtue of his acceptance, is sanctifying grace. While the two graces are practically inseparable, still their dis- crimination is of the highest importance ; for it is by confound- ing the two that Rome has re-introduced her theory of justifi- cation, by self-righteousness. Hence, let the student remember, that the results of the two graces are different. Justification removes the guilt of sin, sanctification its pollution. Justifica- tion changes only our legal relations, sanctification our actual moral condition. Justification is an act, sanctification is a pro- cess ; the one is instantaneous and complete in all, the other is imperfect in its degree in all, unequal in different Christians, and is increased throughout life. Justification takes place in God's court, sanctification in the sinner's own breast.

The necessary and uniform connection between the two

Sanctification Essen- ^as been argued substantially in the last lee

tial to Salvation. ture on J ustification, and to that the student

664 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

is referred. But the proposition is of such prime importance, that it will not be amiss, in closing this head, to state the points of our argument in somewhat different order.

(a.) The Covenant of Grace embraces both. Jer. xxxi : 33 ; Rom. viii : 30.

(b.) The sanctity of the divine nature requires it. i Pet. i : 15, 16.

(c.) The connection appears inevitable from the offices of Christ ; for He is King, as well as Priest, to all His people. Rom. viii : 29 ; vi : 1 1 ; Titus ii : 14 ; Rom. viii : i, 2.

(d.) The office of the Holy Ghost shows this connection ; for His influences are a part of Christ's purchase. But He is the Spirit of Holiness. Rom. viii : 9.

(e.) The sacraments symbolize cleansing from pollution as well as from guilt. Col. ii : ii, 12; Titus iii : 5.

(f) Redemption would be a mockery without sanctifica- tion ; for sin itself, and not the external wrath of God, is the cause of misery here, and eternal death hereafter. Hence, to deliver the fallen son of Adam from his guilt, and leave him under the power of corruption, would be no salvation.

Last : The chief ultimate end of redemption, which is God's glory (Rom. xi : 36 ; Is. Ixi : 3 ; Eph. i : 6), would be ut- terly disappointed, were believers not required to depart from all sin. For God's holiness, His consummate attribute, would be tarnished by taking to His favour polluted creatures. This point suggests, also, the second, where God points to His own perfect holiness as the reason for the purification of His people. No argument could be plainer. An unholy creature has no place in the favour and bosom of a holy God. As I have argued in another place, God's holy law is as immutable as His nature ; and no change of relation whatever, can abrogate it as a rule of right action.

To return a moment to the third point, I would add on it Faith Embraces ^ remark whicli I omitted, in order to avoid Christ in all His Offi- interrupting the outline. The selfishness and ^^^' guilty conscience of man prompt him power-

fully to look to the Saviour exclusively as a remedy for guilt, even when awakened by the Spirit. The first and most urgent want of the soul, convicted of its guilt and danger, is impunity. Hence, the undue prevalence, even in preaching, of that view of Christ which holds Him up as expiation only. We have seen that even an Owen could be guilty of what I regard as the dangerous statement, that the true believer, in embracing Christ, first receives Him only in His priestly office ! The faith which does no more than this, is but partial, and can bear but spurious fruits. Is not this the explanation of much of that defective and spurious religion with which the Church is cursed ? The man who is savingly wrought upon by the Holy Ghost, is made to feel that his bondage under corruption is an evil as inexora-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 665

ble and dreadful as the penal curse of the law. He needs and desires Christ in His prophetic and kingly offices, as much as in His priestly. His faith " receives Him as He is offered to us in the gospel;" that is, as a "Saviour of His people from their sins."

The Scriptures attribute sanctification so often to God, as ., in I Thess. v : 23, that it is hardly necessary caiiffn'oL Senselhe" to set about collecting proofs. The sense in Father, and the Son, which He is the Author of the grace has but specially the Spirit. ^^^^ indicated, when we said that sanctifica- tion is but the continuance of the process of which regeneration is the initiation. If regeneration is supernatural, and by a mys- terious, but real and almighty operation, more than the moral suasion of the truth, then sanctification is the result of the same kind of agency. The proper and immediate Agent is the Holy Ghost, as appears from Ps. li : 1 1 ; Jno. xvi : 8, 9 ; 2 Thess. ii : 13, &c., &c. This work is also attributed to the Son, in i Cor. i : 30, &c.; and this not merely in the sense of the Epistle to tlie Hebrews, because His righteousness is there mentioned distinctly. Now, Christ is our Sanctifier, because He procures the benefit for us by His justifying righteousness; because He is now the God of Providence, and Dispenser of means to His people; and because, by His perpetual intercession. He pro- cures and dispenses the influences of the Holy Ghost to us, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son. The Father is also spoken of as our Sanctifier; e. g., Jno xvii : 17, because He stands in the Covenant of Grace as the Representative of the whole Trinity, and is the Deviser of the whole gracious means, and the Sender of the Son and Holy Ghost.

While the agency in sanctification is supernatural, and the

inscrutable indwelling and operation of the

The Means Three. ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ required, not only to initiate,

but to continue growth in grace, yet He operates through means usually. And these means may be said comprehensively to be God's truth. His ordinances, and His providence. Such pass- ages as Ps. xix : 1-17, plainly show that not only God's revealed word, but His truth seen through the works of nature, may sanctify the believer. But there is no reason to suppose that these truths of Natural Theology have any sanctifying agency, where they are not confirmed and enlarged by revelation. While truth has no adequate efficiency to sanctify by itself; yet it has a natural adaptation to be the means of sanctification in the hand of the Holy Ghost. For it is religious truth which presents all the objective conditions of holy exercises and acts. That man's active powers may be holily exercised, an object of acting is needed, as well as a power of acting. Thus in natural vision. Now, religious truth presents that whole body of theo- logical facts, of examples, of inducements, of external motives, by which the soul is incited to act. By the ordinances, we mean

666 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

God's worship and sacraments ; for the preaching of the word comes more properly under the former head. Worship is a sanctifying means, because the petitions there offered are the appointed medium for receiving grace ; and because all the parts of worship give expression and exercise, and thus growth, to holy principles. The sacraments are means whereby God sym- bolizes and seals to us the same truths expressed verbally in Revelation. They are, therefore, a kind of acted instead of spoken word, bringing to the soul, in a still more lively manner, those views of truth, which the Holy Ghost makes the occasion, or objective of holy exercises.

Last, God's providences, both prosperous and adverse, are powerful means of sanctification, because they impress religious truth, and force it home, by operating with the word and Holy Ghost, on our natural emotions. See Ps. cxix : 71 ; Heb. xii : 10; Rom. ii : 4. But it should be remarked, that two things must concur for the sanctifying effect of Providences — the light of the word on the Providences to interpret them and give them their meaning, and the agency of the Holy Ghost inclining the heart to embrace the truths they serve to impress. Mere suf- fering has no holiness in it.

Looking back, we now see that there is a sense in which But the Word is the ^^e Revealed Word is the uniform means of Means in the other In- sanctification. It gives fulness and authority struments. ^^ Natural Theology. It guides, authorizes,

and instructs our worship. It is symbolized in the sacraments. And it shines through the Providences, which do but illustrate it. So that the Word is the means, after all, in all other means, Jno. xvii : 17. Where the Word is not, there is no holiness.

Now, there are two graces, by whose intervention the effi- cacy of all these means of sanctification is FaftSSe'J-Grace".'^ always mediated to the soul. In other words, these two graces are the media through which all other means come in efficacious contact with the soul. They may, therefore, be called the mother graces of all the others. They are Repentance and Faith. It is only when an object is apprehended by a full and active belief, that it becomes the oc- casion of any act of the soul. A hundred illustrations are at hand, which show that this is universally true, and as true in man's carnal, as in his spiritual life. Belief is the instigator of action. But in order that belief may instigate action, the object beheved must be so related to the affections of the mind, that there shall be appetency and repulsion. In the case of saving faith, that relation is repentance — i. e., the active affec- tions of the regenerate soul as to holiness and sin, and the means for attaining the one and shunning the other. The stu- dent may now understand why God gives these graces such prominence in practical religion. They are the media for the exercise of all others. It follows, obviously, that repentance

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 66/

and faith must be in perpetual exercise during the whole pro- gress of sanctification.

It has been a question long mooted between Evangelical

Christians, and Pelagians, Socinians, Jesuits,

4. Wesleyan Doctrine ^^^ Weslevans, whether sanctification is ever

of Sinless PerfecUon. r ^ ■ \.i ■ i-r t-i -n i • j c

perfect m this life. The Pelagians and bo- cinians had an interest to assert that it may be ; because such an opinion is necessary to establish their doctrine of justification by works ; the Jesuits in order to uphold the possibility of " merits of supererogation ;" and the Wesleyans, to sustain their theory of free-will and the type of religion which they foster. As we have, practically, most to do with Wesleyans, on this point, and they reproduce the arguments of the others, let us address ourselves to their views. They assert that it is scriptu- ral to expect some cases of perfect sanctification in this life ; because, i. The means provided by God are confessedly ade- quate to this complete result, should He please to bless them ; and that it seems derogatory to His holy character when He assures us that " this is the will of God, even our sanctification," to suppose He will not hear and answer prayers for a blessing on those means, to any extent to which the faith of His chil- dren may urge those prayers. And 2. He has actually com- manded us to pray for entire sanctification. Ps. cxix : 5, 6. Surely, He does not cause the seed of Jacob to seek Him in vain ? 3. Not only has He thus encouraged, but commanded us to seek perfection. See Matt, v : 48. Unless obedience were possible, the command would be unjust. And 4. Perfect sanctification is nowhere connected with the death of the body by explicit texts. Indeed, the opinion that it must be, savours of Gnosticism, by representing that the seat of ungodliness is in the corporeal part, whereas, we know that the body is but the passive tool of the responsible spirit. As to the involuntary imperfections which every man, not insanely vain, must acknowl- edge, they are not properly sin ; for God does not hold man guilty for those infirmities which are the inevitable results of his feeble and limited nature. Here, the Wesleyan very mani- festly implies a resort to the two Pelagian principles ; that man is not responsible for his volitions unless they are free not only from co-action, but from certainty ; and that moral quality resides only in acts of choice ; so that a volition which is preva- lently good is wholly good. Hence, those imperfections in saints, into which they fall through mere inattention, or sudden gust of temptation, contrary to their sincere bent and prefer- ence, incur no guilt whatever. Last : They claim actual cases in Scripture, as of Noah, Gen. vi : 9 ; Ps. cxix : i ; Job i : i and 8 ; David, Ps. xxxvii : 37 ; Zechariah ; Luke i : 6 ; i Jno. iii : 9.

We reply : Perfection is only predicated of these saints, to>

668 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

show that they had Christian sincerity ; that fect° ^'^'*' ^""'"^ ^^" they had all the graces essential to the Chris- tian character in actual exercise. As if to refute the idea of their sinless perfection, Scripture in every case records of them some fault, drunkenness of Noah, lying of Abraham, adultery and murder of David, unbelief of Zecha- riah, Luke i : 20, while Job concludes by saying, " I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

The most objectionable trait about this theor}^ of perfect

sanctification, is its affinities to Jesuitism and Pelagian Features. t> i • • ti i

^ relagianism. i nese are several ways mani-

fest. We saw that the old Pelagians, admitting that a complete obedience is requisite for a justification by works, claimed that the obedience which is formally in strict accordance with the statute, and prevalently right in purpose, is perfectly right. We saw, also, how they defended this view in consistency with their false ethicks. For they place the moral quality of acts in the volition, denying any certain efficiency to subjective (as to objective) motive. Now, volition is, of course, an entire and single act. The motives of a single volition may be complex ; but the volition has a perfect unicity. Hence, if the morality of the act is wholly in the volition, and not in those complex motives, if the purpose is right, it is wholly right. But say, with us, that the volition derives its moral quality from the sub- jective motives, (which is the doctrine of common sense and the Bible,) and it follows that a volition may have a complex moral character ; it may be prevalently right, and yet not per- fectly right. Now, while volition is single, motive is complex. I showed you, that the least complex motive must involve a judgment and an appetency, and that no objective theory is ever inducement to volition, until it stands, in the soul's view, in the category of the true and the good, (the natural good, at least). In the sense of this discussion, we should include in the " subjective motive" of a given volition, all the precedaneous states of judgment and appetency in the soul, which have cau- sative influence in the rise of that volition. Then, many ele- ments may enter into the subjective motive of a single volition ; elements intellective, and elements conative. Every one of these elements which has a moral quality, i. e. which arises imdcr the regulative power of subjective, moral disposition, may contribute of its moral character to the resultant volition. Now, then, it is the plainest thing in the world, that these elements may be, some unholy, and some holy. Hence, the volition, while possessed of an absolute singleness as a psychological function, may have mixed moral character, — because, simply, it has morally mixed subjective springs in the agent's soul. This solution is simple ; and in several problems it is vital. Let it explain itself in an instance. A good Christian man is met in public by a destitute person, who asks alms. With deliberate

OF LFXTURES IN THEOLOGY. 669-

consideration the relief is bestowed. The things which were present in the Christian's consciousness were these : The rush of instinctive or animal sympathy (morally negative while merely animal) : A rational movement of dyd-y^, or love (mor- ally good) : Recollection of, and desire for Christ's glory as dis- played in the succour of His creature, (morally good) : The thought of, and pleasure in, his own applause as a philanthropist (morally ' negative at least, and if inordinate, criminal) : Selfish appetency to retain the money needed by the destitute person, for his own gratification, (morally evil). And last, a judgment of conscience. Now, the nature of that Christian's process of soul, during the instant he stood deliberating, was an adjusting of these concurring and competing elements of motive. The result was, that the better ones preponderated over the selfish reluctance, and the alms were given voluntarily and deliber- ately. Let us credit the Christian with giving the preponderant weight to Christian love, zeal for Christ's honour, and the con- scientious judgment of obligation. Then these elements of motive have constituted the concrete act a prevalently godly one. But there ought to have been no selfish reluctance ! Then the very fact, that this evil element was there and was felt, and even needed suppressing, was an element of moral defect. There again, was the personal craving for applause, which was enough felt, to cause at least a partial disregard of our Saviour's rule, Matt, vi : 3, at the time of giving the alms^ or afterward. Then, this also detracts from the perfectness of the action. Yet it was a prevalently godly action. So, an act may be socially virtuous, while prevalently ungodly ; or an act may be wholly godless and vicious. Only those, in whom con- cupiscence has been finally extinguished, perform perfectly godly acts. Such, we repeat, is the analysis of common -sense, and of the Bible. But the Wesleyan, acknowledging remain- ders of concupiscence in his " complete " saint, and yet assert- ing that his prevalently godly acts are perfect acts, has uncon- sciously adopted the false Pelagian philosophy, in two points : that " concupiscence is not itself sinful ;" and that the " moral quality resides exclusively in the act of soul." Again : when the Wesleyan says that an act, to which the good man is hurried by a gust of temptation so sudden and violent as to prevent deliberation ; an act which is against his prevalent bent and purpose, and which is at once deplored, is an infirmity, but not a sin ; he is pelagianizing. He has virtually made the distinction between mortal and venial sins, which Rome borrows from Pelagius, and he is founding on that heretic's false dogmas, that responsibility ends when the will is no longer in cqidlibrio. (In this case it is the sudden gust of temptation which suspends the equilibrium). There is also a dangerous affinity between these principles, and those horrible deductions from Pelagianism, made by the Jesuits, under the name of the art of *' directing the attention,"'

6/0 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and venial sins. The origin is in the same speculations of those early heretics. The student may see an account and refutation in the unrivalled " Provincial Letters " of Blaise Pascal. The general doctrine is : that if, in perpetrating a crime, the direction of the intention is to a right end, this makes the act right, because the act which is prevalently right is wholly right. The abominations to which this Pelagian dogma led, in Jesuits' hands, were such, that they contributed to their suppression. ' It is not charged that Wesleyans countenance any of these immoral and loathesome conclusions : but their premises are dangerous, as appears from these results.

To proceed : it is true that the Bible does not say, in so many words, that the soul's connection with e u a on. ^^^ present body is what makes sanctification

necessarily incomplete. But it asserts the equivalent truth ; as when it teaches us, that at death the saints are made perfect in holiness. It is no Gnosticism, but Scripture and common sense, to attribute some obstacles to entire sanctification to the continu- ance of the animal appetites in man. While God's omnipotence could overcome those obstacles, yet it is according to His man- ner of working, that He has seen fit to connect the final com- pleteness of His work of grace in the soul, with this last change. Hence, when the Scriptures show that this is His plan, we are prepared to believe it so.

God commands us, says the Wesleyan, to "be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect,"

Me'irofAbX'^' '^^^^^"^^ '^^ possibility must follow. I reply.

True ; God cannot require of us a physical impossibility. But our inability to keep God's whole law per- fectly is not physical. It began in man's sin. By that sin we lost none of those faculties which, when Adam's will was right, enabled him to keep God's command without sin. Our impo- tency is an " inability of will." Hence, it ought not to alter the demands of God's justice on His creatures. It is right in God to require perfection of us, and instruct us to seek it, because His own perfect nature can accept no less. Did God allow an ina- bility of will to reduce His just claims on the creature, then the more sinful he became, the less guilt would attach to his short- comings. A creature need only render himself utterly depraved to become completely irresponsible !

But we argue, affirmatively, that sanctification is never

complete in this life, (a). Because the Proofs"^ Sinless, g^ripture says expressly that remains of sin

exist in all living men. See, for instance, i Jno. i: 8; Jas. iii: 2; i Kings viii : 46: Prov. xx : 9. How can such assertions be evaded ?

(b.) I argue it, also, from the perpetual warfare which the Scriptures say is going on between the flesh and the Spirit. See Rom. vii: 10, to end; Gal. v : 17, etc. This warfare, says

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6/ 1

the Bible, constitutes the Christian hfe. And it is of no avail for the Wesleyan to attempt evading this picture of Rom. vii : as the language of Paul convicted but not yet converted; for other similar passages remain, as Rom. viii: 7; Gal. v ; 17; Phil, iii : 13 : i Tim. vi : 12, etc., etc. Now, as long as the con- test lasts, there must be an enemy, (c). The impossibility of a perfect olDedience by ransomed men is clearly asserted in Scrip- ture. Ps. cxix: 96; Acts xv : lO. It is true, that in the latter place the ceremonial law is more immediately in Peter's view ; bnt the whole law is included, as is obvious from his scope ; and if either could be perfectly kept, surely the ceremonial would be the easier. Last : The Lord's Prayer teaches all Christians to pray for the pardon of sin ; a command which would not be universally appropriate if this doctrine were true. And if human experience can settle such a point, it is wholly on our side ; for those who are obviously most advanced in sanctifica- tion, both among inspired and uninspired saints, are most emphatic in their confessions of shortcoming ; while those who arrogantly claim perfect sanctification, usually discredit their pretentions sooner or later, by shameful falls. It is well that the Arminians have coupled the doctrine of falling from grace with this. Otherwise their own professors of complete sancti- fication would have refuted it with a regularity that would have been almost a fatality.

Now. the Almighty Spirit could subdue all sin, in a living saint, if He chose. Bible truths certainly present sufficient inducements to act as the angels, were our wills completely rectified. Why God does not choose, in any case, to work this complete result in this life, we cannot tell. " Even so. Father ; for so it seemed good in Thy sight."

The Wesleyans are accustomed to claim a more stimulat- ing influence toward the pursuit of holiness, Th^orkrComp°ared^° f^^ their doctrine, and to reproach ours with paralyzing results. They say, that with a rational agent, hope is a necessary element in the incentives tg exertion ; and that it is unnatural and impossible a man should attempt, in good earnest, what he thinks impossible to be achieved. But tell him that success, though arduous, is possible, and he will strain every nerve, and at least make great progress. They say that Calvinists practically teach their converts not to aim high, and to make up their minds to low attainments in holi- ness. And hence the feeble and crippled character of the most of the religion exhibited in their churches. We reply, that this calculation misrepresents the facts, and leaves out one of the most important of them. We do not forbid hope. We teach our people to hope for constant advances in holiness, by which they approach perfection continually, without actually reaching it in this life. The essential fact left out of the estimate is the invincible opposition of the new nature to all sin. The man

6/2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

renewed by God is incapable of con^enting himself with any degree of sin. Here is the safeguard against the cessation of the struggle under the discouraging belief that victory is only after death. If the indwelling enemy is thus as long-lived as the body, and immortal as long as the body lives, yet truce is impossible because the hostilily of the new-born soul to it is unquenchable. Does it follow from this view, that the life must be a life-long battle? I reply, even so; this is just what the Bible represents it to be.

We can retort on the Wesleyan, a juster objection to the working of his theory. By giving a false definition of what per- fection is, it incurs a much greater risk of inciting false pride, and dragging the conscience into a tolerance of what it calls guiltless, or venial infirmities. The Bible-Christian, the more he is conformed to God, advances just so much the more in tender- ness aud perspicacity of conscience. Sin grows more odious, just as holiness grows more attractive. Thus, when there is, in God's view, less indwelling sin to extirpate in the heart, it is nerved by its contrition to a more determined war against what remains. Thus an ever progressive sanctification is provided for, conformably to the rational and free nature of man. But our question is : If the Christian be taught that what remains of indwelling sin, after a distinctive and decisive reign of grace begins in the soul, •' is infirmity but not sin," do we not run a terrible risque of encouraging him to rest on the laurels of past attainments ; do we not drug his conscience, and do we not thus prepare the way for just those backslidings, by which these high pretenders have so frequently signalized their scheme ? Wes- leyans sometimes say, that their doctrine of perfect sanctifica- tion, as defined by them, amounts to precisely the same with our statement concerning those better Christians, who, with Caleb and Joshua, (Numb, xiv : 24), "followed the Lord fully," and who enjoy an assurance of their own grace and sal- vation. Our objection is, that a dangerous and deluding state- ment is thus made of a scriptural truth. All Christians should be urged to these higher spiritual attainments ; but they should not be taught to call that " perfection," which is not really perfect, nor to depreciate their remaining sins into mere " infirmities."

A form of virtual perfectionism has become current recently, among Christians whose antecedents were not Armin- ian, but Reformed. They call themselves advocates of the "Higher Christian Life." This stage, they say, is reached by those who were before Christians, by a species of second con- version. The person gains his own full consent to undertake, in reliance on Christ, a life entirely above sin ; a life which shall tolerate no form or grade of shortcoming. As soon a» this full resolve is entertained, and is pleaded before God with an entire faith, the believer receives the corresponding grace and strength.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6/3

in accordance with the promise; "Ask and ye shall receive." This attainment is often accompanied with a new "baptism of the Spirit," bestowing this full victory over sin, with a perfect assurance of acceptance ; which baptism is immediately and infallibly recognized by the recipient, and in some cases, is even perceptible to bystanders, by infallible signs. Thence- foward, the recipient "walks in the light," enjoys perfect peace, and lives above all sin. It is pleaded by the advocates of this claim ; that there is no limit to the gospel promises, nor to the merits of Christ, nor to the paternal grace of God ; that the only reason we do not get fuller grace is, that we do not believingly ask it : and that no scriptural limit may be put upon this last proposition, this side of a perfect victory over sin. If, say they, men had a perfect faith to ask, they would receive of Christ's fulness a perfect answer. They quote such promises as these; "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it," Ps. Ixxxi : lO. "Ask and ye shall receive," Matt, vii : 8. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification." i Thess. iv : 3.

That the promises of God in Christ hold out indefinite encouragement to believers, is a precious truth. That it is the duty of all to press forward to the mark, is indisputable. But when men say, that a perfect faith would receive a perfect answer, they are but uttering a valueless truism. The man who had a perfect faith would be a perfect man. He would need no more sanctification. Unfortunately for this theory, the indwell- ing sin which creates the need for farther sanctification, inevit- ably involves some imperfection and weakness of the faith. We shall always have to raise the disciples' cry; " Lord increase our faith," as long as we cry for increase of grace. So, if a believer's heart were finally, immutably, and perfectly united, through every moment, in the resolve to live, by Christ's strength, absolutely above sin, he would doubtless meet with no rebuff in any petition for strength, at Christ's throne of grace. But in order to have such a state of purpose, there must be no indwelling sin in that heart. This scheme, stripped of its robes, comes therefore to this truism : " Were a man abso- lutely perfect, he would be absolutely perfect ?" The picture of the Christian's militant life, which we ever see portrayed in Scripture, is that of an imperfect, but progressive faith uniting him to his Saviour, always finding Him faithful to His promises, and always deriving from Him measures of grace correspond- ing to the vigour of its exercise, yet always leaving room for farther advances. There is an exceedingly broad and conclu- sive argument against all forms of perfectionism in this fact : That the provisions of grace described in the Bible are all pro- visions for imperfect and sinning men. The gospel is a religion for sinners, not for glorified saints. This is the only conception of it which appears in any part of scripture.

Only a little experience and scriptural knowledge are nec-

43*

6/4 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

essaty, to make us view the claims of the spiritual baptism advanced above, with suspicion. The immediate visitation of the Holy Ghost should attest itself by miraculous "signs," by- "tongues," or "gifts of heahngs ;" as it did in apostoHc days. If these be lacking, we have no other test of its presence, than the fruits of holy living ; and for these we should wait. The Christian who, instead of waiting for this attestation, presumes on an intuitive and infallible consciousness of the endowment, can never scripturally know but that the impulse he mistakes for the Spirit's baptism is natural fanaticism, or the temptation of him, who is able to transform himself into an angel of light.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Jas. iii: 2
  2. Rom. vii: 10
  3. Rom. viii: 7
  4. Ps. cxix: 96

SYLLABUS

5. What is the Subject of Sanctification ; man's fallen Nature, or something else ? And are Sanctification and mortification of sin progressive ?

" Notes on Genesis," by C. H. M. of Dublin, p. 200, &c. " Waymarks in the Wilderness," by Jas. Inglis, Vol i, p. 10; Vol. iii, pp. 75-332 ; Vol. v, pp. 29, 37, &c., Dr. Jno. Owen, on IndweUing Sin.

6. What constitutes an Evangelical Good Work ? Are any works of the natural man godly works ?

Turrettin, Loc. xvii, Qu. 4. Dick, Lect. 76. Hill, bk. v, ch. 4. Hodge's Theol. pt. iii, ch. 18, g 4.

7. Can man merit of God, by works ? What the Doctrine of Rome concerning congruous and condign Merit ?

Turretdn, Qu. 5. Hill, as above g 2. Knapp, | loS, 125. Hodge as above.

8. State and refute the Popish Doctrine of Concilia Perfect ion is, and Superero- gation.

Th. Aquinas, Pars Prima Secundcz, Qu. 108. Suppl, Qu. 13. Turrettin, Loc. xi, Qu. 4. Knapp, § 125. Hill as above. Hodge as above.

9. What the standard for our sanctification ? Show the value and relation of Christ's example thereto.

Dick. Lect. 75. Knapp, 117. Chalmer's Theol, Inst. Vol. ii, ch. 10.

' I ^HE relation between regeneration and sanctification has

been stated: The first implants a life which the second

nourishes and develops. It is the heart of

Sanctification is Pro- j^j soul, which is the seat of the

gressive. ^'-,. ^ ., , ,i-i

first. It is, of course, the same heart, which is the seat of the second. The latter is defined in our Cate- chism (Qu. 35), as a " work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteous- ness." See also Larger Catech., Qu. 75, and Conf. of Faith, ch. 13, § I. We regard sanctification then as advancing that renovation of man's heart, which regeneration begins. The process of sanctification and that of the mortification of sin are counterparts. The more we live unto righteousness, the more

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 6/5

we die unto sin. Grace and indwelling sin are complementary

quantities, if a material illustration may be borrowed, such that

the increase of the one is the corresponding decrease of the

other. But in opposition to this established vi'=;w of the

13, ,1, T~, . • Reformed Churches, the Plymouth Brethren's Plymouth Doctrine. , , i i i i . , ,- ,

theology asserts that both the ideas of the

mortification of the "old man" and of progressive sanctifica- tion are false. They ascribe the same completeness to sancti- fication from its inception, as to justification ; if they do not quite combine them. Thus : (" Waymarks in the Wilderness," vol. iii, pp. 342, 343), regeneration is defined: "It is a new birth, the imparting of a new life, the implantation of a new nature, the formation of a new man. The old nature remains in all its distinctness ; and the new nature is introduced in all its distinctness. This new nature has its own desires, its own habits, its own tendencies, its own affections. All these are spiritual, heavenly, divine. Its aspirations are all upward. It is ever breathing after the heavenly source from which it ema- nated. Regeneration is to the soul what the birth of Isaac was to the household of Abraham. Ishmael remained the same Ishmael, but Isaac was introduced." On p. 80th, " Be warned that the old nature is unchanged. The hope of transforming that into holiness is vain as the dream of a philosopher's stone, which was to change the dross of earth into gold." .... "On the other hand, never be discouraged by new proof, that that which is born of the flesh is flesh. It is there ; but it is condemned and crucified with its affections and lusts. Reckon it so, and that therefore you are no longer to serve it. It is just as true, that that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and remains uncontaminated by that with which it maintains a •ceaseless conflict." So. vol. v, p. 302. " Thus, two men there are in the Christian : so hath he evil ; and so hath he not evil. If therefore he purge out the evil, it is his new man purging out his old man. Now these two men, within the control of the personality of the Christian, are real men, having each his own will, his own energy, and his own enjoyment."

In answer to this exaggerated view, we assert, first, that

while the Apostle, Rom. vii : 23, speaks of

The New Nature ,, .-, , ^. , .' , -" . ^ . ^

-Yv^hat? another law m his members, warring against

the law of his mind," the Scriptures

nowhere say that regeneration implants a " new nature ; or that

the Christian has in him "two natures;" much less, two "real

men." Shall I be reminded of Gal. v : 17, where the "Spirit"

and "flesh" lust against each other? The "Spirit" is the

Holy Ghost. So judges Calvin ; and so the scope of Paul's

context, in verses i6th and i8th, decides. So, in that chapter,

it is a violence to the Apostle's meaning, to represent the

"works of the flesh," verse 19th, &c., and the "fruits of the

Spirit," verse 23d, as occupying the same man, in full force,

6/6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

cotemporaneously. The 24th verse shows, that the latter extrude and succeed the former; and that this result is the evi- dence of a state of grace. Our popular language sometimes uses the word " nature " in the sense of Vi\oxdXHabihis ; and we speak of grace as " changing the nature," or " producing a new nature." But in strictness, the language is neither philosophi- cal, nor scriptural. A " nature " is the essentia, the aggregate of essential attributes with which the creature was natus. Were this changed, the personal identity would be gone, and the whole responsibility dissolved. The fall did not change man's essentia ; nor does the new creation ; each changed the moral habitus of man's powers : the fall to depravity, the new creation back towards holiness. The notion of two personali- ties also, in one man, is preposterous. Here the appeal to con- sciousness is decisive. If there were either two "natures" or two " real men," every Christian must have a dual conscious- ness. But I need not dwell on the truth which every man knows, that, while there is a vital change, consciousness is as much one, as in the unrenewed state. The explanation given in the last lecture solves this whole confusion. While the will is one, motives are complex. Regeneration works a prevalent, but not absolute revolution, in the moral disposition regulative of the Christian's motives. Amidst the complex of subjective states which leads to any one volition, some elements may be spiritual and some carnal. As regeneration established a new and prevalent (thi.)ugh not exclusive) law of disposition, so sanctification confirms and extends that new law in introducing more and more of the right elements, and more and more extruding the wrong elements.

Let us, second, bring the matter to the test of Scripture. The thing which is renewed is the sinful soul.

Scripture Argument. ^^^ -^ . ^3 . jj . ^.^ . j ^or. vi : I I ; Col.

i : 21, 22. Both the sanctification of the soul, and the mortifi- cation of sin are expressly declared to be progressive processes. Let the student consult the following references : 2 Cor. 1:22* V : 5 ; Acts xx : 32 ; 2 Cor. iii : 18 ; Eph. iv : 11-16 ; Phil, iii : 1 3-1 5 ; i Thess. v : 23 ; 2 Cor. vii : i , Heb. vi : I ; i Peter, ii : 2 ; 2 Peter, iii : 18; Rom. viii : 13 ; Col. iii : 5. So, the Bible compares the saint to living and growing things ; as the vine, the fruit tree, the plant of corn, the infant ; all of which exhibit their lives in growth. Grace is also compared to the " morning light, waxing brighter and brighter to the perfect day ;" and to the leaven, spreading through the whole vessel of meal : and to the mustard-seed, the smallest sown by the Jewish husbandman, but gradually growing to the largest of herbs. Is not the rhetoric of the Word just? Then we must suppose the analogy exists ; and that spiritual life, like vegetable and animal, regularly displays its power by growth. These innova- tors borrow the Popish plea, that " the new-creation, being God's

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY.' 6/7

work, must be perfect." I reply ; The infant is also a work of God's power and skill ; but he is designed to grow to an adult. We find this idea incompatible, in the third place, with the laws of a finite rational creature. These Progressive."^ ^^ ^'^ ordain, that every faculty, affection, and habit must grow by their exercise, or be enervated by their disuse and suppression. Depravity grows in sinners, (2 Tim. iii : 13) as long as it is unchecked. So, holi- ness must grow by its exercise. Even the pagan Horace under- stood this, — Crescentein seqidttir ciira peciiniaui, majoriimque fames. This being the law of man's mutable nature, it must follow, that, as exercise increases the principles of holiness, so the denial of self and flesh must enervate and diminish the principles of sin.

I object, in the last place, to the antinomian tendencies ^ , . r ^ , which are, at least latently, involved in this

Tendencies of Dual i rr u t Vli ^ i i

Doctrine Antinomian. Scheme. If one believes that he has two " real men," or " two natures " in him, he will be tempted to argue that the new man is in no way responsible for the perversity of the old. Here is a perilous deduction. But the next is worse, as it is more obvious. If the new nature is complete at first ; and the old nature never loses any of its strength until death ; then the presence, and even the flagrancy of indwelling sin need suggest to the believer no doubts what- ever, whether his faith is spurious. How can it be denied that there is here terrible danger of carnal security in sin? How » different this from the Bible which says Jas. ii : 18, "Show me thy faith without thy works ; and I will show thee my faith by my works." If then any professed believer finds the " old man " in undiminished strength, this is proof that he has never "put on the new man." If the flesh is reviving, spiritual life is just to that extent receding ; and just in degree as that recession proceeds, has he scriptural ground to suspect that his faith is (and always was) dead.

There is a gospel sense, in which the Scriptures speak of the acts and affections of Christians as good What ? °° °^ ' works. By this, it is not meant that they are perfect, that they could stand the strictness of the divine judgment, or that they are such as would receive the reward of eternal life under the Covenant of Works. Yet they are essentially different in moral quality from the actions of the unrenewed ; and they do express a new and holy nature, as the principle from which they spring. There is also a cer- tain sense in which God approves and rewards them. How 'are these evangelical actions of the soul defined ? We conceive that the Scripture characterizes them thus: i. They must be the actions of a regenerate soul ; because no other can have the dispositions to prompt such actions, and feel such motives -as must concur. See Matt, xii : 33, or vii : 17, 18. 2. The

6"/^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

I

action must be, in form, regulated by the revealed will of God ; for He allows no other rule of right and wrong for the creature. No act of obedience to rules of mere human or ecclesiastical device can claim to be a good work ; it is more probably an offence unto God. See Deut. iv : 2 ; Is. i ; 12; xxix : 13; Matt. XV : 9. As God's will is to us practically the fountain of authority and obligation, it ■ is obviously unreasonable that the debtor should decide for the creditor, how much or wh^t the former sees fit to pay. And moreover, such is the distance between God and man, and the darkness of the sinful mind of man, we are no suitable judges of what service is proper to render God. Man's duty is simply what God requires of him. Can we err in defining good works as the right performance of duty ? 3. In order for that performance to be a good work, its prevalent motive or motives must be holy : and among these,, especially, must be a respectful, righteous, and filial regard, either habitual or express, to the will of God commanding the act. See i Cor. x : 31 ; Rom. xi : 26, and xii : i. No princi- ple of common sense is plainer, than that the quality of the act depends on the quality of the intention. An act not intended to please God is, of course, not pleasing in His sight, no matter how conformed in outward shape to His precepts.

Such works are not perfectly, but prevalently holy. I have

A Work not per- ^^o^e than once remarked, that the motive of fectly Holy maybe most of our volitions is a complex of several prevalently so. appetencies. Now, this habitual, or present

filial regard to God's authority may be the prevalent motive of a given act ; and yet it may be short of that fulness and strength which the perfect rectitude and goodness of the heavenly Father deserve. It may also be associated with other lower motives. Of these, some may be personal, and yet legitimate ; as a reas- onable subordinate regard to our own proper welfare. (The presence of such a motive in the complex would not make the volition sinful.) But other motives may, and nearly always do, mix with our regard for God, which are not only personal, but sinful : either because inordinate, or impure, as a craving for applause, or a desire to gratify a spiteful emulation. . Remem- bering the views established in the last lecture, you will perceive that in such a case, the volition would be on the whole, right and pious, and still short of perfect rightness, or even involving, with its holiness, a taint of sin.

But the best natural virtues of the heathen, and of all un-

No True Good converted persons, come short of being gos- Works done by Un- pel good works. See, for instance. Gen. vi :

converted or Heathen. ^^ ^„j j^^^ ^jjj . g j^;^ ^j.^^^ recalls the assertion made of the total depravity of the race, and its grounds. It will be remembered that we did not deny the sec- ular sincerity of the social virtues, which many pagans and un- renewed men possess. Nor did we represent that their virtues

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 679

were equal to the vices of the wicked. But what we mean is, that while nearer right than the open vices, they are still short of right ; because they lack the essential motive, regard to God's revealed will and the claims of His love. " God is not in all their thoughts." Now, as our relation to God is the nearest and most supreme, an act which ignores this, however right it may be in other motives, still remains prevalently wrong in the sight of God. It does not reach the level of Bible holiness at all, though it may rise much nearer towards it than the sins of the reprobate. We do not, then, represent God as judging the amiable and decent transgressor equal to a monster of crime, nor condemning all secular virtues as .spurious and worthless between man and man.

The proposition, that even the good works of believers do 7. Merit. Rome's not earn eternal life by their intrinsic merit, Distinction into Con- has been found very repugnant to human gruous and Condign. pride. Rome consequently seeks to evade the omission of it, by her distinction of congruous and condign merit. [Merihiin de congruo de condigno.) The former she makes only a qualified kind of merit. It is that favourable quality which attaches to the good works done by the unre- newed man before conversion, which properly moves God to bestow on him the help of His grace. The condign merit is that which attaches to evangelical good works done after con- version, by the help of grace, which, by its proper value and force, entitles the believer to eternal life. True, Bellarmine and the Council of Trent, with the most of Romanists, say that eternal life comes to the obedient believer partly by the merit of his own works, and partly by virtue of Christ's promise and purchase ; so that, were there no Saviour, human merit would come short of earning heaven. But they hold this essentially erroneous idea, that, in the gracious works of the justified man, there is a real and intrinsic merit of reward.

To clear up this matter, let us observe that the word merit is used in two senses, the one strict or proper, Wlfat?"*' ^^"''^^^ the other loose. Strictly speaking, a merito- rious work is that to which, on on account of its own intrinsic value and dignity, the reward is justly due from commutative justice. But when men use the word loosely, they include works deserving of approval, and works to which a re- ward is anyhow attached as a consequence. Now, in these lat- ter senses, no one denies that the works of the regenerate are meritorious. They are praiseworthy, in a sense. They are fol- lowed by a recompense. But in the strict sense, of righteously bringing God in the doer's debt, by their own intrinsic moral value, no human works are meritorious. The chief confusion of thought, then, which is to be cleared away, is that between the approvable and the meritorious. An act is not meritorious, only because it is morally approvable.

680 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Note further, that it is wholly another thing to do works which may fall within the terms of some cov- Hypothetical Merit ^^^^^^^ ^^ promise, which God may have gra- ciously bestowed. If the king is pleased, in his undeserved kindness, to promise the inheritance for the doing of some little service utterly inadequate to the reward, and if any creature complies with the terms exactly, then the king is, of course, bound to give what he has engaged. But he is bound by fidel- ity to himself, not by commutative justice to the service ren- dered ; for that, intrinsically, is inadequate.

In the strict sense, then, no work of man brings God in the doer's debt, to reward him. The work which Strictly, no Creature -g ^^orthy of this must have the following can Merit. . ^ ■' , , . , , i i

traits : It must be one which was not already owed to God. See Luke xvii : lo. It must be done in the man's own strength ; for if he only does it by the strength of Christ, he cannot take to himself the credit of it. " It is not he that liveth, but Christ that liveth in him." It must be perfectly and completely right ; for if stained with defect, it cannot merit. Last, it must be of sufficient importance to bear some equitable ratio' to the amount of reward. One would not expect a large sum of money as wages for the momentary act of handing a draught of water, however cheerfully done. Now, it is plain at the first glance, that no work of man to God can bring Him, by its own intrinsic merit, under an obligation to reward. All our works are owed to God ; if all were done, we should only " have done what was our duty to do." No right work is done in our own mere strength. None are perfect. There is no equality between the service of a fleeting life and an inheritance of eternal glory.

We may argue, farther, that the congruous merit of the

Papist is imaginary, because nothing the un- Natural Works have believer does can please God: "Without

no Ment of Congruity. ...... ., , i tt- .. <. t-i

faith it is impossible to please Him. ihey

that are in the flesh cannot please God," Every man is under condemnation, until he believes on Christ with living faith. But if the person is under condemnation, none of his acts can merit. Second : There is an irreconcilable contrast between grace and merit. See Rom. xi : 6. The two are mutually exclusive, and cannot be combined. Grace is undeserved bestowal ; merit purchases by its desert. This being so, it is vain for the Papist to attempt to excuse his error of a congruous merit subordinated to, and dependent on, free grace, by any false analogies of first and second causes. The human affection or act springing out of grace, may have approvableness, but no sort of merit. ' The practical remark should be made here, that when the awakened sinner is thus encouraged to claim saving graces as due to the congruous merit of his strivings, tears, reformations, or sacra- ments, he is put in the greatest peril of mistaking the v/ay of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 68 1

salvation, grieving the Spirit, and falling into a fatal self-righte- ousness. What more insolent and deadly mistake can be made, than this telling of God, on the part of a miserable sinner, pen- sioner on His mere mercy, that the wretch's carnal, selfish striv- ings, or expedients, have brought the Almighty in his debt, in a sense, to bestow saving helps ? Third ; The whole Scripture holds forth the truth, that Christ bestows saving graces, not because of any form of merit, but in spite of utter demerit. We receive them " without money and without price." It was " when we were enemies, that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." Even the saint seeking grace always, in the Scripture seeks it purely of grace. Much more must the sinner. See Ps. li : 1-4; Dan. ix : 18 ; i Tim. i : 12- 16. In conclusion of this point, it will be instructive to notice the close connection between this claim of " congruous merit," and the value attached by those Protestants who are syner- gists, to those expedients which they devise, to prepare the way for faith. Awakened sinners are encouraged to use them, and to look to them, not indeed as justifying; but as some- how leading on to more saving graces. Yet, there is a cer- tain relationship of sequence, between the exercisings and strivings of carnal conviction and saving converson. " They that be whole need not a physician, but they that be sick." The pangs of the sick man have a certain instrumentality in prompt- ing him to send for the physician who cures him. In this sense they may be viewed as useful. But, per sp, they are not in the least degree curative they are but parts of the disease, whose only tendency is death.

That no merit of condignity attaches even to the good works of saints, is clear from the conditions w^,L''o°f"Ri°»:;a.L" J<f have shown to be requisite. (See page 680). The most conclusive passages are such as these: Luke xvii : 9, 10; Rom. vi : 23 ; v : 15-18 ; Eph. ii : 8-10 ; 2 Tim. i : 9 ; Titus iii : 5, and such like. The first gives an argument by analogy, founded on the Judean husbandman's relation to his bondsman (his oouao;; not his hire- ling). The master had legitimate property in his labour and industry — not in his moral personality, which belonged inalien- ably to God. Hence, when the bondsman rendered that ser- vice, the master did not for a moment think that he was thereby pecuniarily indebted to him for a labour which was already his own property : however he might regard the docility and fidelity of the bondsman highly approvable, he never dreamed that he owed him wages therefor. So we are God's property. He has, at the outset of our transacting with Him, ownership in all our service. Hence, if we even served Him perfectly, (which we never do,) we could not claim that we had paid God any overplus of our dues, or brought Him into our debt. He might approve our fidelity, but He would owe us no w^ages. In

682 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Rom. vi : 23, the Apostle actually breaks the symmetry of his antithesis, in order to teach that we merit nothing of God's commutative justice. Death is the wages which sin earns : but eternal life is the gift of God, and not wages earned by the Christian. The remaining passages teach the same.

Turrettin sustains this view farther, by showing that the gracious acts, for which Romanists claim merit of condignity, and the eternal life attached to them, are always spoken of as the Father's gifts ; that they are always spoken of as the Re- deemer's purchase ; that the Christians who do them are repre- sented in the Bible as acknowledging themselves " unprofitable servants ;" and that they always confess the unworthiness of their best works, especially in view of the everlasting reward. The Scriptures which might be collected under these heads would present an overwhelming array of proof.

But carnal men strongly resent this conclusion ; and urge.

It does not Follow ^s though it were a self-evident refutation, that because Sin Merits, that as sin and good works are in antithesis, our Works Do. ^^^ cannot hold that man's sin carries a true

and essential desert of punishment, and deny that his good work carries an equal desert of reward. To affix the one and refuse the other, they exclaim, would be a flagrant injustice. I reply : Between human rulers and ruled, it would. But they forget here the prime fact, that God is the Maker and sovereign Proprietor of men. The property may be delinquent towards its sovereign Owner, but it cannot make the Owner delinquent to it. If it fails in due service, it injures the rights of its Owner : if it renders the service, it only satisfies those rights ; nothing more. But here a certain concession should be made. While a creature's perfect obedience is not meritorious of any claim of reward upon his Lord, in the strict sense, there is a relation of moral propriety between such obedience and reward. We saw that it appeared unreasonable to claim everlasting reward for temporal service. But does not a perfect temporal service deserve of God temporal reward? I would say, in a certain sense. Yes ; supposing the creature in a state of inno- cency and harmony with his Lord. That is, it would be incon- sistent with God's rectitude and benevolence, to begin to visit on this innocent creature the evils due to sin, before he trans- gressed. God would not infringe, by any suffering or wrath, that natural blessedness, with which His own holiness and good- ness always leads Him to endow the state of innocency. But here the obligation is to God's own perfections, rather than to- the creature's merit.

Some have supposed these views to be inconsistent with

Did Adam and Elect the terms of the Covenant of Works between Angels Merit under God and the elect angels, and God and Adam. Covenantor Works? ^^ley say that Paul, Rom. iv : 4, 5, and xi : 6, in drawing the contrast already cited between works and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 683

grace, assigns condign merit to a perfect service done under a Covenant of Works. " To him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of grace, but of debt," I reply : this of course, is true of works done under a covenant of works : but to over- throw the Reformed argument, they must show that it would be true also of works done under the natural relation to God, as Lord before any covenant of promise. When once God has gratuitously condescended to promise, a claim of right for the perfect service rendered does emerge : of course. It emerges out of God's fidelity; not out of commutative justice. And when the creature, as Gabriel for instance, complies with the covenanted terms perfectly, and in his own strength, he gets his reward on different terms from those of the pardoned sinner. There is, in a sense, an earning under compact ; such as the sinner can never boast ; and this, we presume, is all the Apostle ever meant.

It only remains, on this head, to explain the relation In what Sense are between the good works of the justified be- Believer's Works Re- liever and his heavenly reward. It is ex- ^^'■'^'^'^ ■ plained by the distinction between an intrinsic

and original merit of reward, and the hypothetical merit granted by promise. If the slave fulfills his master's orders, he does not bring the latter in his debt. " He is an unprofitable servant ; he has only done what was his duty to do." But if the master chooses, in mere generosity, to promise freedom and an inheri- tance of a thousand talents for some slight service, cheerfully performed, then the service must be followed by the reward. The master owes it not to the intrinsic value of the slave's acts, (the actual pecuniary addition made thereby to the master's wealth may be little or nothing,) but to his own word. Now, in this sense, the blessings of heaven bear the relation of a " free reward" to the behever's service. It contributes nothing essen- tial to earning the inheritance ; in that point of view it is as wholly gratuitous to the believer, as though he had been all the time asleep. The essential merit that earned it is Christ's. Yet it is related to the loving obedience of the believer, as appointed consequence. Thus it appears how all the defects in his evan- gelical obedience (defects which, were he under a legal cove- nant, would procure the curse, and not blessing,) are covered by the Saviour's righteousness ; so that, through Him, the inadequate works receive a recompense. Moreover, it is clearly taught that God has seen fit, in apportioning degrees of blessed- ness to different justified persons, to measure them by the amount of their good works. See Matt, xvi : 27 ; I Cor. iii : 8, of which Turrettin remarks, that the reward is " according to," but not " on account of" the works. See also, 2 Cor. ix : 6 ; Luke xix : 17, 18. Not only the sovereignty, but the wisdom and righteousness of a gracious God are seen in this arrangement. Thus a rational motive is applied to educe dili-

684 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

gent obedience. Thus it is evinced that the gospel is not a ministration of indolence or disobedience ; and God's verdicts in Christ not inconsistent with natural justice. It is thus, because the grace given on earth is a preparation of the soul for more grace in heaven. And last, good works are the only practical and valid test of the genuineness of that faith, by which believ- ers receive the perfect merits of Christ. This last fact, especi- ally, makes it proper that the "free reward" shall be bestowed " according to their works ;" and explains a nmltitude of pas- sages, which Papists suppose make the reward depend on the works.

It may be said that the Romish Church is indebted to the

8. Works of Super- ^S^ of Thomas Aquinas, and most probably erogation, Source of to him, for the final theory of " works of

^''^^y- supererogation." He found among the Fath-

ers, the distinction between Christ's prcBcepta and concilia. This distinction pretending to find its grounds in certain texts of the New Testament, more probably had its origin in a desire to imitate the exoteric and the esoteric, higher and lower, morals of the New Platonists. The instances of Concilia usually quoted are those of Matt, xix : 12 and 21: i Cor. vii : 38-40; Acts xxi : 23, -zAf, and they are usually grouped by them under the three virtues of voluntary poverty, perpetual chastity, and reg- ular obedience. The Church had long held, that while every one must strive to obey all the precepts of Christ, on pain of damnation, he is not expressly bound to comply with the " coun- cils of perfection." If he sees fit to omit them, he incurs no wrath. They are but recommendations. Yet, if his devoted spirit impels him to keep them for the glory of God, he thereby earns supererogatory merit, superfluous to his own justification. Aquinas now proceeds to build on this foundation thus : One man can work a righteousness, either penal or supererogatory, so that its imputation to his brother may take place. What else, he argues, is the meaning of Gal. vi : 2 ; '• Bear ye one another's burdens," etc. ? And among men, one man's generous efforts are permitted in a thousand ways to avail for another, as in suretyships. " But with God, love avails for more than with men." Yea, a less penance is a satisfaction for a brother's guilt than would be requisite for one's own, in the case of an equal sin. Because the purer disinterestedness, displayed in atoning for the penitential guilt of a brother, renders it more amiable in the sight of God, and so, more expiatory. If a sin- ning believer hits himself twenty blows with his whip on his bare shoulders, it may be that a selfish fear of purgator>" is a large part of his motive ; and God will subtract from the merit of the act accordingly. But when he does it for his brother's sin, it is pure disinterested love and zeal for God's honor, the twenty blows will count for more.

The philosopher then resorts to the doctrine of the unity

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. 2 Cor. 1:22

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 685-

Imputation of Super- pf the Church, and the communion of saints erogatory Merit, and in cach Other's graces and sufferings, to show orSenLlS*' that the merit of these supererogatory ser-

Vices and suftenngs is imputed to others. There is, in the holy CathoHc Church then, a treasury to which all this spare merit flows. As the priesthood hold the power of the keys, they of course are the proper persons to dispense and apply it. But as the unity of the Church is especially rep- resented in its earthly head, the Pope, he especially is the proper person to have charge of the treasury. And this is the way indiilgentia is procured ; the Pope imputes some of this supererogatory merit of works and penance out of the Church treasure ; whence the remission to the culprit of the penitential and purgatorial satisfaction due from him for sin. But his con- fession, absolution, and contrition are necessary ; otherwise indulgence does no good, because without these exercises the man's own personal penance would have done no good. Last, this indulgence may properly be given by the Church, in return for money, provided it be directed to a holy use, as repairing churches, building monasteries, etc. (He forgot our Saviour's, words : " Freely ye have received, freely give.")

The overthrow of all this artificial structure is very easy for

Distinctions of Coun- the Protestant. We utterly deny the distinc-

sels of Perfection Re- tion of the pretended " counsels of perfec-

tion," from the precepts, as wicked and senseless. It is impossible that it can hold : because we are told that the precepts go to this extent, viz : requiring us to. love God with all the soul and heart and mind, and strength. If, then, any Christian has indeed found out that his circumstances, are such, the refraining from a given act, before and elsewhere indifferent, has become necessary to Christ's highest glory; then for him it is obligatory, and no longer optional. " To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Rome's own instance refutes her. In Matt, xix : 23, 24, the rich ruler incurs, by rejecting our Saviour's counsel, not the loss of supererogatory merit, but the loss of heaven ! Again : how can he have superfluity who lacks enough for him- self ? But all lack righteousness for their own justification ; for "in many things we offend all." So, the Scriptures utterly repudiate the notion that the righteousness of one man is impu- table to another. Christian fellowship carries no such result. It was necessary (for reasons unfolded in the discussion of the Mediator), that God should effectuate the miracle of the hypo- static union, in order to make a Person, whose merit was imputable. "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him." Nor does the Protestant recognize the existence of that penitential guilt, which is professed to be remitted by the indulgence.

The standard set for the believer's sanctification is the

686 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

8. Standard of Sane- character of God as expressed in His precep- tification, Law, and tive law. This rule is perfect, and should be Jesus' Example. sufficient for our guidance. But God, in

condescension to our weak and corporeal nature, has also given us an example in the life of the Redeemer. And this was a sub- sidiary, yet important object of His mission. See i Pet. ii : 2i. (We recognize in its proper place, this prophetic function of the Mediator, which the Socinian makes the sole one.) The advan- tage of having the holy law teaching by example is obvious. Man is notoriously an imitative creature. God would fain avail Himself of this powerful lever of education for his moral culture. Example is also superior in perspicuity and interest, possessing all the advantage over precept, which illustration has over abstract statement. If we inspect the example of Christ, we shall find that it has been adjusted to its purpose with a skill and wisdom only inferior to that displayed in His atoning offices. Examining first the conditions of an effective example, we find that they all concur in Christ. It is desirable that our examplar be human ; for though holiness in God and in angels is, in principle, identical with man's, yet in detail it is too different to be a guide. Yet while it is so desirable that the example be human, it must be perfect ; for fallible man would be too sure to imitate defects, on an exaggerated scale. Man is naturally out of harmony with holiness, too far to be allured by its example ; he would rather be alienated and angered by it. Hence, the exemplar must begin by putting forth a regenerating and reconciling agency. • Last : it is exceedingly desirous that the examplar should also be an object of warm affection; because we notice that the imitative instinct always acts far most strongly towards one beloved. But Christ is made by His work the prime object of the believer's love.

The value of Christ's example may be also illustrated in the following particulars : It verifies for us Example. ° "^' ^ ^^^ conception of holiness, as generally dis- played in God. That conception must lack definiteness, until we see it embodied in this " Image of the invisible God," who is "the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person." See Lect. vii : end. Next, Christ has illustrated the duties of all ages and stations ; for the divine wisdom collected into His brief life all grades, making Him show us a perfect child, youth, man, son, friend, teacher, subject, ruler, king, hero, and sufferer. Again, Christ teaches us how common duties are exalted when performed from an elevated motive ; for He was earning for His Church infinite blessedness, and for His Father eternal glory, when fulfilling the humble tasks of a peasant and mechanic. And last, in His death especially. He illustrated those duties which are at once hardest aud most essential, because attaching to the most crit- ical emergencies of our being, the duties of forgiveness under

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 68/

wrong, patience and fortitude under anguish, and faith and courage in the hour of death. Consult, Rom. xv : 3 ;_ Phil, n : 5; Heb.xii: 2, 3 ; 1 Jno. iii : 16; Eph. iv : 13; Jno.xiii: 15 ; i

Cor. xi : I. . .

Some have endeavoured to object, that we must not mu- tate even an incarnate Christ, because He is God and man, and His mediatorial sphere of action above ours. I reply : of course we do not presume to imitate His divine acts. But was He not made under our law? One end of this was that He might show us a human perfection, adapted for our imitation.

SYLLABUS

1 State the Doctrines of Pelagians, Papists, Amiinians and Calvinists hereon. _ Conf. of Faith, ch. xvii. Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. 16. g 1-8. Witsius, bk. 111,

2 ProVe the Doctrine, i. From God's election. 2. From the Covenant of Grace. 3. From Union to Christ and participation in His merits and mtercession. 4- i^^om the indwellins: and Seed of the Spirit. „. , , ^ iir-.. •

Turretdn as above, § 9-2^ Dick, Lect. 79- Ridgley, Qu. 79- Witsms, as above, § 12-37. 2. Present other Scriptural proofs.

Turrettin, as above, Qu. 16, § 25-28. Ridgley. Qu. 79- A Reconcile objections ; and especially those founded on Scripture-passages, as Ezek xviii : 24 ; Heb. vi : 4, &c.; x : 29, 38 ; iii = 12. i Cor. ix : 27 ; 2 Peter, 11 : 20 ;

^°™' TuJreJtint as above, Qu. 16, § 29-end. Dick, Lect. 79- Ridgley, Qu. 79. ? 4- Sampson on Hebrews. Watson's Theol. Inst. ch. 25. 5. What is the moral Tendency of the Doctrine ? Witsius as above, § 39-46.

SCRIPTURE and experience concur in imputing to man, in his natural state, an obduracy and deadness of heart, which would leave the preacher of the gospel to This Doctrine En- ^^^^^ ^^ despair, were it not for his depend- couraging to Preacher. ^^^^ ^^ the Sovereign grace of God. But when he believes firmly in the eternal covenant of grace, whereby God has promised His Son a chosen seed, not for any merit which He sees in sinners, and to call and perfect this seed by His efficacious grace, there is ground laid for cheerful exertions. The laborious Christian then looks upon his own efforts for sin- ners as one of the preordained steps in this plan of mercy, upoA his prayers as taught him by the Holy Ghost, and there fore surely destined to an answer ; and upon the visible suc- cess of his labours, as the evidence that God, whose plans are immutable, and who always perfects what He undertakes, is ■working He is joyfully hopeful concerning the final triumph

688 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of those who are born unto God by his instrumentahty, because he sees an eternal purpose and unchangeable love engaged for their upholding. He can cheerfully leave them, though surrounded with the snares of the world ; because he leaves the Chief Shepherd with them, who will easily raise up other instruments and provide other means for their guidance. In this spirit the Apostle says, Phil, i : 6, that from the first e, r, 1 TT J •. ^9-y of their conversion till now, his prayers

bt. raul l-ounditso. r i • -ni -i- ■ i i i i'

tor his rhilippian converts had always been offered in joy, because he was confident that the Redeemer, who had b£gun the blessed work*in them, by their regeneration, faith, and repentance, would continue that work of sanctifica- tion, till it was perfected at the second coming of Jesus Christ, in the resurrection of their bodies, and their complete glorifica- tion. This work was begun in them by God, not by their own free choice, independent of grace ; for that choice always would have been, most freely and heartily, to choose sin. It must have been begun by God from deliberate design; for God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will. That design and purpose of mercy was not founded on anything good in them, but on God's unchangeable mercy ; and there- fore it would not be changed by any of their faults, but the unchanging God would carry it out to perfection.

We have here the Apostle's plain expression of his belief ^ . in the perseverance of the truly regenerate.

Doctrine to be Dis- • „ ^t.„t.^ „r i. i. i.u j t

cussed Fairly. ^^ ^ state oi repentance, unto the end. In

attempting the discussion of this doctrine, let us exercise the spirit of humility and candor, laying aside prej- udice, avoiding all abuses or perversions of God's truth, and striving to apprehend it just as He has presented it. I would at the outset guard the truth from abuse, and from opposition by defining:

That this perseverance in a state of grace is not innate and necessary, with the new-born nature, but fined. gracious. It does not proceed from anything

in the interior state of the regenerate soul, but wholly from God's purpose of mercy towards that soul. Security from fall is the attribute of none but God, Adam in Paradise was capable of apostasy. Holy angels were capable of apostasy; for many of them fell ; and doubtless the angels and glorified saints in heaven owe their infallibility, not to their own strength, but to God's unchanging grace working in them. Much more would the Christian, in his imperfection, be liable to fall.

This perseverance does not imply that a man may be living .,, . in habitual and purposed sin, and yet be in a Sin.° ""^l^^ ' ^^'' justified state, because he who is once justi- fied cannot come into condemnation. We heartily join in everything which can be said against so odious

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 689

a doctrine. It is impossible, because the living in such a state of sin proves that the man never was, and is not now, in a jus- tified state, whatever may be his names and boasts.

Our doctrine does not teach that many will not be finally lost, who are connected with the visible Church outwardly, and whom the Scriptures may call believers in a certain sense, because they have a temporary or historical faith, like that of Simon Magus. But those who have once had in them the true principle of spiritual life, never lose it.

Nor do we teach that all Christians have equal spiritual vitality at all times ; but they may fall into partial errors of doctrine, coldness and sin, which may for a time wholly inter- rupt their comfort in religion, and overcloud their evidence of a gracious state. Yet is the root of the matter there.

It is simply this ; that " They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, and effectually called and sane-

n.iS:feTt"seir^'' '}^''^ ^y ^'' 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."

As I have taken the definition of the doctrine from the Confession of Faith, I cannot do better than to take my method of discussion from the same source. Under each head many Scriptures will come in, more naturally and easily, so that the support they give to the doctrine will be more mani- fest, and more clearly understood.

Before proceeding, however, the competing opinions 'should

_ . ^ . . be stated. Pelagians, Papists, and Armin-

Opposite Opinions. • , 1 • ° ^1 , . 1 , 1

^^ *^ lans teach, m common, that the truly regen-

erate believer may totally and finally fall away, and be lost. Some Weslyans, in view of Heb. vi : 6, teach that apostasy from a true state of grace is possible, but th,at the reconversion of the man thus fallen never occurs. The premise by which this denial of the saints' perseverance is dictated, is their favourite definition of free agency, as involving necessarily the contin- gency of the will. They are consistent with their false philos- ophy ; for the will of the saint who certainly perseveres is obviously not in a contingent state. Hence, in their view, his gracious acts would not be free nor responsible. Some of the Reformed have modified the doctrine to this extent. They suppose that an elect man may totally fall away ; but that God's purpose of grace towards him is always effectuated by his reconversion, before he dies. Thus ; they would suppose that at the time of David's shocking crimes, faith and spiritual life had utterly died in him. But God's faithful purpose called him back to true repentance in due time. The motive of this state- ment is pious ; they think it safer to teach thus, than to say that there was even a spark of true life in David's soul while he was acting so criminally ; because the latter view may tempt men 44*

690 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

living in gross sin to flatter themselves with a false hope. Yet their view, however well-intended, is not scriptural, and is obnoxious to a part of the arguments we shall use. It is inconsistent with that vitality of the seed of godHness asserted in the gospel.

I. This is proved by the immutability of the decree of election. When anyone is born again of the Holy Ghost and justified in Christ, it is because God had formed, from eternity, the unchangeable purpose to save that soul. The work of grace in it is the mere carrying out of that unchangeable pur- pose. As the plan is unchangeable, so must be its execution, when that execution is in the hands of the Almighty. How can argument be more direct? Heb. vi : 17, 18. God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immu- tability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, &c. See also Matt, xxiv : 24; 2 Tim. ii : 19 ; Rom. viii : 29 ; viii : 33, &c.

And even though this unchangeable election were con- Micrht be Argued ditional, and made in foresight of the believ- from Certain Fore- er's faith and obedience, yet if it has any knowledge. certainty, it must imply that the believer

shall certainly be kept from finally falling away. If it even rose no higher than simple foreknowledge, yet a foreknowledge which means anything, must be certain. If God does not cer- tainly know whether a given event shall take place or not, then He does not foreknow it at all. But if He certainly knows that it shall occur, the occurrence of that event must be with- out failure ; otherwise God's foreknowledge would be false ! So that unless we impiously strip God of His foreknowledge, (to say nothing of His having an all-wise, almighty,- and immu- table plan), we must sujjpose that the perseverance in a gra- cious state, of all those whom He foresees will be finally saved, is so far necessary that they cannot finally fall away.

" The perseverance of believers follows from the free and

2. Argued from Free- unchangeable love of God the Father,"

dom of Electing Love, which was the ground of their being chosen

No Unforeseen Provo- u^to salvation. The Scriptures make it

cation of God Arises. 1 • i.i i. i.i t r^ j j i.

plam that the reason why God ever deter- mined to save any man was not His seeing in him anything good, attractive or extenuating, but something without, known to His wisdom, which was to God a good and wise reason to bestow His eternal love on that particular sinner. Rom. ix : II and 16. This sovereign and unmerited love is the cause of the believer's effectual calling. Jer. xxxi : 3 ; Rom. viii : 30. Now, as the cause is unchangeable, the effect will be unchange- able. That effect is, the constant communication of grace to the believer in whom God hath begun a good work. God was not induced to bestow His renewing grace in the first instance, by anything which He saw, meritorious or attractive, in the repenting sinner ; and therefore the subsequent absence of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 69I

everything good in him would be no new motive to God for withdrawing His grace. When He first bestowed that grace, He knew that the sinner on whom He bestowed it was totally- depraved, and wholly and only hateful in himself to the divine holiness ; and therefore no new instance of ingratitude or unfaithfulness, of which the sinner may become guilty after his conversion, can be any provocation to God, to change His mind, and wholly withdraw His sustaining grace. God knew all this ingratitude before. He will chastise it, by temporarily withdrawing His Holy Ghost, or His providential mercies ; but if He had not intended from the first to bear with it, and to forgive it in Christ, He would not have called the sinner by His grace at first. In a word, the causes for which God deter- mined to bestow His electing love on the sinner are wholly in God, and not at all in the believer ; and hence, nothing in the believer's heart or conduct can finally change that purpose of love. Is. liv : 10 ; Rom. xi : 29. Compare carefully Rom. v : 8-10 ; viii : 32, with whole scope of Rom. viii : 28-end. This illustrious passage is but an argument for our proposition : " What shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

This doctrine depends " upon the efficacy of the merit and

intercession of Jesus Christ." As all Chris- •;. A r Plied fiom .• „ 1.1 1 j r ^i j.

Christ's Merit. tians agree, the sole ground 01 the accept-

ance of believers is the justifying righteous- of Jesus Christ. The objects of God's eternal love were " chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world," " accepted in the beloved," and made the recipients of saving blessings, on account of what Christ does in their stead. Now, this ground of justification, this atonement for sin, this motive for the bestowal of divine love, is perfect. Christ's atonement surmounts the demerit of all possible sin or ingratitude. His righteousness is a complete price to purchase, the sinner's par- don and acceptance. See Heb. ix : 12; x : 12 and 14 ; Jno. v : 24. See with what splendid assurance and boldness Paul argues from this ground. Rom. viii : 33 and 34. Can one who has been fully justified in Christ, whose sins have been all blotted out, irrespective of their heinousness, by the perfect and effica- cious price paid by Jesus Christ, become again unjustified, and fall under condemnation without a dishonour done to Christ's righteousness?

So likewise the prevalent and perpetual intercession of

^, . , , Christ, founded on the perfect merit of His

From Chnst s Inter 1 ,1 , , ■ r n r 1

cession. work, ensures the salvation of all for whom

He has once undertaken. We are assured

that the Father heareth Him always, when He speaks as the

Mediator of His people. Jno. xi 142; Heb. vii : 25. Now,

after He has uttered for His Selieving people — for all who

should believe Him through the gospel of His apostles — such

prayers as those of Jno. xvii : 20, &c., 24, must not the answer

692 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

of this request, or, in other words, the certain final redemption of all who ever shared His intercession, be as sure as the truth of God ? But if any man is ever justified, that man has shared the intercession of Christ ; for it was only through this that He was first accepted.

The perseverance of the saints proceeds " from the abid- 4. Argued from the i^g ^f the Spirit, and of the seed of God Indwelling of the Holy within them." Every Christian, at the hour °^^* he believes, is so united to Christ, that he

partakes of His indwelling Spirit. This union is a permanent one. The moving cause for instituting it, God's free and eter- nal love, is a permanent and unchangeable cause. The indwel- ling of the Spirit promised to believers is a permanent and abiding gift, i Jno. ii : 27.

His regenerating operations are spoken of as a "seal,"

^ , and an "earnest" of our redemption. Eph.

From the Seal and • ^^ ^ ^ r^ • „^ -r-\ c i-

Earnest. ^ • ^3' H ! 2 Cor. 1 : 22. 1 he use 01 a seal is

to ratify a covenant, and make the fulfilment of it certain to both parties. An "earnest" (appariiov') is a small portion of the thing covenanted, given in advance, as a pledge of the certain intention to bestow the whole, at the promised time. Thus, he who promised to give a sum of money for some possession, at some appointed future day, gave a small sum in advance, when the covenant was formed, as a pledge for the rest. So the renewing of the Holy Ghost is, to evqry believer who has enjoyed it, a seal, impressing the image of Christ on the wax of his softened heart, closing and certify- ing the engagement of God's love, to redeem the soul. It is the earnest, or advance, made to the soul, to engage God to the final bestowal of complete holiness and glory. Unless the final perseverance of believers is certain, it could be no pledge nor seal. The in/erence is as simple and as strong as words can express, that he who has once enjoyed this seal and earnest is thereby certified that God will continue to give the Holy Ghost until the end.

It is a most low and unworthy estimate of the wisdom of the Holy Ghost and of His work in the not Fickle. ° ^ °^ heart, to suppose that He will begin the work now, and presently desert it ; that the vital spark of heavenly birth is an igjiis fatniis, burning for a short season, and then expiring in utter darkness ; that the spiritual life communicated in the new birth, is a sort of spasmodic or galvanic vitality, giving the outward appearance of life in the dead soul, and then dying. Not such is the seed of God within us. Jno. v : 24. " Verily, verily I say unto you : He that heareth INIy word, and believ^th on Him that sent ]Mc, hath everlasting life." John iii : 15 ; vi : 54. The principle then iinplanted, is a never-dying principle. In every believer an eternal spiritual life is begun. If all did not persevere in Jioli-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 693

ness, there would be some in whom there was a true spiritual life, but not everlasting. The promise would not be true. See also I John iii : 9 ; i Pet. i : 23.

Our doctrine follows, also, " from the nature of the Coven- ant of Grace." God did, from eternity, make Cove4'm of Gra^e.*^ w>th His Son a gracious covenant, engaging, in return for the Son's humiliation, to give Him the souls of all who were chosen in Him before the foun- dation of the world, " that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love." This covenant is an everlasting one. Jer. xxxii : 40. It is an unchangeable covenant. Ps. Ixxxix : 34, (spoken of the second David). The sole condition of the- covenant is Christ's work for His chosen people. Heb. X : 14. Now, the administration of such a covenant most plainly requires that there shall be no uncertainty in its results. If one of those, whose sins Christ bore, ever fell into final con- demnation, the contract would be proved temporary, change- -able and false. To derive the full force of this argument, we must again distinguish between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption. We argue from the latter. The Son (not believers) is the "party of the second part." Because he is omnipotent, holy and faithful, the compact can- not fail. Again ; in this covenant, the only procuring condition is one that has been already fulfilled, Christ's work and sacri- fice. Hence the contract is closed and irrevocable. Hence it must ensure the redemption of its beneficiaries.

On the eternal certainty of this covenant is founded the This Covenant faithfulness of the gospel offer, pledging God Pledges Grace to Per- to every sinner who believes and repents, ^^'^^''^* that he shall through Christ receive saving

grace ; and among those gracious influences thus pledged with eternal truth to the believer, from the moment he truly believes, is persevering grace. Jer. xxxii : 40 ; (proved to be the gospel pledge by Heb. viii : 10}; Is. liv : 10; Hos. ii : 19 and 20; i Thess. v : 23, 24 ; Jno. x : 27 ; i Pet. i : 5 ; Rom. viii : end. These are a few from the multitude of promises, assuring us of our final safety from every possible influence, when once they are truly in Christ.

I am well aware that the force of these and all similar passages has been met, by asserting that in all gospel promises there is a condition im- plied, viz : That they shall be fulfilled, provided the behever does not backsHde, on his part, from his gospel privileges. But is this all which these seemingly precious words mean ? Then they mean nothing. To him who knows his own heart, what is that promise of security worth, which offers him no certainty to secure him against his own weakness ? All " his sufficiency is of God." See also Rom. vii : 21. If his enjoy- ment of the promised grace is suspended upon his own perse-

694 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

verance in cleaving to it, then his apostasy is not a thing possible, or probable, but certain. There is no hope in the gospel. And when such a condition is thrust into such a prom- ise as that of Jno. x : 27 : " None shall pluck them out of INIy hand," provided they do not choose to let themselves be plucked away ; are we to suppose that Christ did not know that common Bible truth, that the only way any spiritual danger can assail any soul successfully, is by persuasion : that unless the adversary can get the consent of the believer's free will, he cannot harm him ? Was it not thus that Adam was ruined ? Is there any other way by which a soul can be plucked away from God ? Surely Jesus knew this ; and if this supposed condition is to be understood, then this precious prom- ise would be but a worthless and pompous truism. " Your souls shall never be destroyed, unless in a given way," and that way, the only and the common way, in which souls are ever destroyed. " You shall never fall, as long as you stand up." But to thoroughly close the whole argument, we have only

to remark, that the promise in Jer, xxxii : 40, elusive.^'"'" ^° °"" which is most absolutely prcfved by Heb.

viii : 10, &c., to be the gospel covenant, most expressly engages God to preserve believers from this very thing — their own backsliding. Not only does He engage that He will not depart from them, but " He will put His fear in their hearts, so that they shall not depart from Him."

Other arguments exist, from independent assertions of 6. Independent Ar- Scriptures. It used to be common with the guments for Persever- Calvinistic divines to advance the joy of the ^^^^' angels over repenting sinners, as a proof of

their perseverance. The idea was, that if their state in grace were mutable, these wise and grand creatures would not have attached so much importance to it. To me this reasoning always appeared inconclusive. We have seen good Christians sometimes rejoicing very sincerely over what turned out to be a spurious conversion, because they supposed it to be genuine. Now, it does not appear that the angels are always infallible in their judgments of appearances, any more than we : although far wiser. Besides, if some true converts did fall from grace, the angels would still know that those who finally reach heaven must be sought among the sinners who experience conversion on earth. A much more conclusive argument may be drawn from those passages, which explain the apostasy of seeming converts, in consistency with the perseverance of true saints. One of these is found in 2 Pet. ii : 22. Here the apostate pro- fessor is an unclean animal, only outwardly cleansed ; a " sow that was washed;" its nature is not turned into a lamb; and this is the explanation of its return to the mire. A still stronger one is i Jno. ii : 19. Here the departure of apostates is explained by the fact, that their union to Christ and His peo-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 695

pie never was real ; because had it been real they " no doubt would have continued with us ; " and their apostasy was per- missively designed by God to " manifest " the fact that they never had been true believers.

Another proof presents itself in the parable of the sower. Matt, xiii : 6 and 21. The stony-ground-hearer withers, because he "hath no root in himself" Still another maybe found in 2 Tim. ii : 19. There the Apostle, referring to such temporary professors as Hymenaeus and Philetus, explains that their apos- tasy implied no uncertainty as to the constitution of the body of Christ's redeemed : because God knew all the time who were truly His ; and the foundation of His purpose concerning their salvation stood immovable amidst all the changes and apostasies which startle blind men.

With reference to all objections founded on the cases of Solomon, David, Peter, Judas and such like, plained.^ ' '"^^ ""' ^ reply briefly, that the explanation is either that of John's first Epistle 2 : 19, that they never had true grace to lose, or else, the history contains proof that their apostasy was neither total nor final, though grievous. In Peter's case, Christ says, Luke xxii : 32, that " Satan desired to sift him like wheat, but He prayed for him that his faith should not fail." Peter's faith, therefore, did not fail, though his duty did. So the prayer of David, Ps. li : ii, 12, shows that he was a true saint before and after his sin. That the principle of true grace can exist, and can be for a time so foully obscured, as in David's case, is indeed a startling and alarming truth. Yet does not the experience of society, and of our own hearts '^"bstantiate the view ?

Here let "s return to notice the view of those who deem it G^f^r to say, that David's grace was all extinct when he com- • tted these crimes ; lest the opposite doctrine should en- courage carnal security.' We have seen that several of our scriptural proofs refute the idea of a complete extinction and subsequent restoration of spiritual life. It is inconsistent with the permanency of that principle, and with the nature of the Spirit's indwelling, seal, and earnest. But the licentious result feared is effectually warded off by a proper knowledge of the Scriptures. The true believer's hope of personal acceptance is always obscured, just in proportion to the extent of his back- slidings. Hence, if he listens to the Scriptures, he cannot both indulge his backslidings and a carnal security. Ror he is ex- pressly told in the Bible, that there is a counterfeit faith and repentance ; and that the fruits of consistent holiness are the only criterion by which the professor himself, or anybody else, except the Omniscient one, can know an apparent faith to be genuine. Hence to the backslider, the hypothesis that his pre- vious graces, however plausible, were spurious and counterfeit is always more reasonable than the other hypothesis, that true

696 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

faith could go so far astray. And if when sinning grievously, He could be capable of making David's case an argument of carnal security in sin ; this would complete the proof of his deadness . David's case is an encouragement to the backslider to return, provided he has David's deep contrition. See Ps. xxxii, and li.

Your commentaries and other text books will give you

those detailed explanations which you need,

Obiecdon. ^^"*^^ ^" °^ ^^^ texts advanced by Arminians against

our doctrine. I may say that the two loca

palmaria on which they rely chiefly care Heb. vi : 4-6, and Ezek.

xviii : 24-29. The solution of these meets all the rest.

Of the first we may briefly remark, that it does not appear the spiritual endowments there described of the apostate, amount to a true state of grace. A detailed criticism and comparison of the traits " being en- lightened," &c., will show that according to the usage of the Scriptures, they describe, not a regenerate state, but one of deep conviction and concern, great privilege, with perhaps char- isms of tongues or healings. The exemplars are to be found in such men as Balaam, Simon ]\Iagus, and Demas. And this is most consistent wdth the Apostle's scope. The terms here, if meant to describe ordinary saving conversion, would at least be most singular and unusual. They are evidently vague, and intentionally so : because God does not care to enable us to de- cide exactly how near we may go to the impassable line of grieving His Spirit, and yet be forgiven.

With reference to the passage from Ezekiel, it could only be claimed by Arminians, in virtue of great in- attention to. the prophet's object in the pass- age. Ezekiel's mission was to call Israel (especially the people in captivity in Mesopotamia) to repentance. He points to their calamities and the destruction of the larger part of their nation, as proof of their great guilt. They attempt to evad his charge, by pleading that "their teeth were set on edge, because their fathers had eaten sour grapes." God answers, in the early part of the chapter, that this explanation of their calamities is un- tenable ; because (while much of His providence over men does visit the father's sins upon sinful children) the guilt of sinful fath- ers is never, in His theocracy, and according to the covenant of Horeb, visited on righteous children. He then goes farther, and reminds them that not only did He always restore prosper- ity, in the theocracy, as soon, as an obedient generation suc- ceeded a rebellious one ; but even more, as soon as a rebellious man truly repented, he was forgivea; just as when a righteous man apostatizes, he is punished. It would appear, therefore, that the thing of which the prophet is speaking is not a state of grace at all ; but the outward, formal, and civic decency of a citizen of the theocracy ; and that the punishments into which

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 69/

such a man fell on lapsing into rebellion, v/ere temporal calam- ities. But farther, the whole passage is hypothetical. It merely supposes a pair of cases. If the transgressor repents, he shall be forgiven. Does the prophet mean to teach that any do sav- ingly repent, in whom God does not purpose to work repent- ance? Let ch. xxxvi : 26, 27, and xxxvii : i-io, answer. So, does He mean to teach that any actually fall into rebellion, who share the grace of God ? Let ch. xxxvi : 27, &c., again answer. There is one general element of objection in all these texts;

that when God warns the righteous, the be- General Answer. 1 • o ■ i. i.i 1 r a.

liever, &c., aganist the dangers or apostasy ;

or when He stimulates him to zeal in holy living by the thought of those dangers, God thereby clearly implies that believers may apostatise. The answer is: Naturally speaking, so he may. The certainty that he will not, arises, not from the strength of a regenerated heart, but from God's secret, unchangeable purpose concerning the believer ; which purpose He executes towards, and in him, by moral means consistent with the creature's free agency. Among these appropriate motives are these very warnings of dangers and wholesome fears about apostasy. Therefore, God's application of these motives to the regenerate free agent, proves not at all that it is God's secret purpose to let him apostatise. They are a part of that plan by which God intends to ensure that he shall not. Compare carefully Acts xxvii : 22, 23, 24, 25, with 31.

In conclusion, we believe that all the supposed licentious results of the doctrine of persev.erance result SanSyTni ^""^"^^^ from misapprehension ; and that its true ten- dencies are eminently encouraging and sanc- tifying, (a.) How can the intelligent Bible Christian be encour- aged to sin, by a doctrine which assures him of a perseverance in holiness, if he is a true believer? (b.) So far as a rational self-love is a proper motive for a sanctified mind, this doctrine leaves it in full force ; because when the Arminian would be led by a backsliding, to fear he had fallen from grace, the Calvinist would be led, just as much, to fear he never had had any grace ; a fear much more wholesome and searching than the erring Arminian's. For this alarmed Calvinist would see, that, while Tie had been flattering himself he was advancing heavenward, he was, in fact, all the time in the high road to hell ; and so now, if he would not be damned, he must make a new begin- ning, and lay better foundations than his old ones (not like the alarmed Arminian, merely set about repairing the same old ones), (c.) Certainty .of success, condition on honest efforts, is the very best stimulus to active exertion. Witness the skilful general encouraging his army, (d.) Last : Such a gift of re- demption as the Calvinist represents- is far nobler and more gracious, and hence elicits more love and gratitude, which are the noblest motives, the strongest and best.

698 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Just SO far as the Calvinist is enabled scripturally to hope that he is now born again, he is, to that ex- trine°™^°''* °^ ^^^ ^°^' ^^"^' entitled to hope that his triumph is sure ; that death and hell are disarmed, and that his heaven is awaiting his efforts. To him who knows the weakness of the human heart, and the power of our spiritual enemies, the Arminian's adoption, beset by the constant liability to fall, would bring little consolation indeed. It is love and confidence, not selfish fear, which most effectually stimulates Christian effort. Let the student see how St. Paul puts this in I Cor, XV : 58.

SYLLABUS

1. Wliat is the disrinction made by the Westminster Assembly, between this grace, and the assurance of Faith ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. i8. Ridgley, Qu. So, § i. Turrettin, Loc. xv, Qu. 17,

2. State the Doctrine of Rome, concerning assurance of grace and Salvation, and her motives herein : Of early Reformers ; and of our Standards.

Council of Trent. Sess. 6, ch. 9, and Canones, 13, 14. Bellarmine, de Justif. bk. iii, chs. 6, 8. Calvin, Inst. bk. iii, ch. 2. Com. on Rom. iv : 16 ; viii : 34. Genevan Cat. p. 137. Niemyer. Augsburg Conf. g 5, and 20, Dorner's Hist. Prot. Theol., Vol, i, § i, ch. 4, g a. Louis Le Blanc against Bossuet. Turrettin. as above. Hill. bk. v. ch. 2. Conf. § 3.

3. Is the assurance of grace and :;alvation of the essence of Saving Faith ?

See Calvin, Turretdn and Conf. as above. Ridgley, Qu. 81. Dick, Lect. 68. So. Presb. Rev. Jan, 1872., Art. i. Theol. of Plym. Brethren. Hill, as above. Sir W. Hamilton, on Unconscious Modifications of the Mind.

4. Prove that this assurance is attainable ; and should be the aim of every Behever.

Turrettin, as above. Ridgley, Qu. 80.

5. By what means is it to be sought ?

See Rom. vii : 16, with Calv., Scott, Hodge, &c., in Loco. Watson's Theo' Inst. ch. 22, ^ 2.. Hill, as above. J. Newton's Sermon, 20. H. B'^* .,1 s "Way of Peace," pp. 23, 24, 39, 262. Waymarks in Wilderness, V '. .ii, pp, 245, 263. Theol. of Plym. Brethren, as above. Chalmers' T* - -. Inst. Vol. iich. 10.

6. Reply to objections ; and especially to tlie fear of its fo='_rmg Carnal Security. Same authorities, and Turrettin, Loc. iv, Qu. 13. P' ..c, Lect. 78.

t^npHE Assurance of Grace and S'.,'vation" is "an infallible

assurance of faith," that th': cabjcctis in a state of grace,

, ^ ^ . . and will be .-^ved. The saving faith which

I. Detmitions. r^ c • ^^ ■ ■ .- -

TT '^cnte^cion fiiscrunmates Irom mis, is the

direct action oi a full and cordial belief in the Gospel promise, with a rereiving and resting on Christ from the heart. The lat- ter, every true believer has, except when confused temporarily by the extreme buffetings of temptation; the former is the complementary attainment of mature and vigorous faith. Some

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 699

works present us the same distinction by the phrases : " Assur- ance of Hope;" ''Assurance of Faith." Others of the Re- formed divines object much to this nomenclature, as being of a Jesuit origin. They argue, also, that assurance of hope must always accompany assurance of faith, because there must always be some hope, where there is any belief of the heart. They ask: How is hope defined? As desire, with expectation. Now, if a man has any belief of the heart, he desires. So, hope and faith, and the assurance of each, must be inseparable. This reasoning is employed, both against the pair of terms as a no- menclature ; and (by others) against the very discrimination, which our Confession asserts. See here, sa.y they, proof, that the Westminster Confession was wrong, and Calvin right : and that there is is no faith where there are not both kinds of Tzkr^po- (fopia. But the solution is extremely easy. No supporter of the Westminster view denies, that even the weakest true faith is attended with an element of hope, more or less consciously felt ; all we assert is : that there may be saving faith, and yet not a Tilr^poifopia sATZcdo^. Others, as we intimated, seem shy of this nomenclature, because of its Jesuit origin. They indeed, used, as they invented it mala fide : They represented the as- surance of hope as grounded partly on the believer's own pious disposition, which they always assert to be mutable. Such an affection would not deserve to be called an assurance. But let us represent to ourselves an assurance of hope grounded " up- on the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward ev- idence of the graces unto which these promises are made, and the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spir- its that we are the children of God ;" and I see not why the phraseology should be rejected. It is, indeed, entirely scrip- tural. See Owen on Heb. vi : ii, and Poole's Synopsis on Col. ii : 2 ; Heb. xi : i. Here we have the Tilripoipop'ta tr^^ auviaecoCy and the -/j^poifopta s.)-'tdo:;. Does not the apostle distinguish between the assurance of the understanding and the assurance of hope ? Again, it is objected, that since the faith and the hope have the same object, the blessings of redemption and the same warrant, the promises of God, they must be inseparable. I have admitted, that some degree of hope, perhaps scarcely conscious hope, is involved in all true faith. But the answer is in this fact. The promises are always practically conditioned on an instru- mental condition; whence the assured expectation of enjoying them, the essential element of the -Ar^poipopia s/.zcdo^, must be practically suspended on the consciousness that the terms are fulfilled. The promises are assuredly mine, provided I have genuine faith. (This expresses the -Ar^poifopia £A~cdo^.) But I know that there is a spurious faith. Hence, although I have some i/-.'c from the moment I embrace that truth, I do not have the 7iAr^po(foiica s/.-coo-, until I have eliminated the doubt whether my faith is, possibly, of the spurious kind.

700 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Many quibbles have been offered by Papists and rational- ists, to show that neither of these (and bilgtflSirranS"'" especially not the assurance of hope) can rise so high as to deserve the name of an in- fallible assurance. If the latter did, it is urged, it should give a certainty of heaven equal to the certainty of our own exist- ence, a certainty admitting of no degrees, and no increase by additions of subsequent evidence. But what sober believer can honestly claim this ? Now, the answer to all this is easily found in an appeal to common sense. What does a man mean when he says he is sure of a thing? That he clearly sees some evi- dence of its truth, which mounts above even the highest proba- bility, to demonstration. Any valid portion of such evidence is proper ground of certain conviction. Does this imply that the evidence cannot be increased, so that the certainty shall have a wider basis ? By no means. So, although it was certainty before, it now becomes a more satisfactory certainty. Again : Assurance of faith, and still more, assurance of hope, embrace as elements of evidence, the state of the soul's own moral affec- tions. The latter, for instance, is based upon a consciousness of the exercise of trust, love, penitence, submission, and peace. Hence, to every one who knows human nature, it is manifest that, however demonstrative may be such evidence in its very highest and purest examples, the certainty based upon it will be much more felt and conscious, at some times than at others, because the actings of those holy emotions, and the soul's atten- tion to and consciousness of their actings, are more lively at times, than at others. Will not the soul, after it is actually in heaven, have more lively attention to, and consciousness of, its present blessedness at some times than at others ? Does not the bereaved widow, who knows her loss only too well at all times, feel it far more sensibly at some times than at others ? Third : it is a most incorrect analysis which either banishes the will from among the causes of belief, in cases of moral truths and evidences presented to the mind, or which denies that the certainty arising of such moral truths can be intellectually cor- rect ; because there is a voluntary element in it. In the case of all moral objects of belief, conviction is far from being a bare intellectual result ; the state of the will powerfully modifies it. (See my analysis of Saving Faith). So obvious is this, that Des Cartes actually places belief among the emotional states of the soul. And yet, the rectitude of the state of will, which concurs in producing a given moral conviction of mind, may itself be the object of the mind's certain cognition. So that the mind, while aware that this mental conviction has been pro- duced in part by a state of will, as well as by a light of evi- dence, shall also be certain that the will acted aright in that case ; and hence, the given belief, though in part a result of the affections, will be felt to be intellectuallv as valid as though

OF LECTURES IX THEOLOGY. ^OF

it were a cold truth of abstract mathematics. If the student will remember, that the belief of this proposition, " I am now in a state of grace," or " I am not," is just one of those moral propositions, concerning which the state of will is most influ- ential, he will see the application of these principles. It will appear why the intellectual belief of such propositions should vary in its felt strength ; viz : because the active and voluntary part of its elements vary. And it will appear that this degree of fluctuation (so to speak) is not at all incompatible with cer- tainty, and a proper intellectual basis of evidence. To dispute this, is as though one should say that, because the waters of the sea do not bear up the boat with the same immobility with which a stone pedestal bears its statue, therefore the waters do not sustain the boat. The assurance of hope, in the breast of the true and eminent saint, is a certainty at its lowest ebbs ; at its higher floods, it is both solid and joyful.

That the saint ought to know he is a saint as clearly as he Assurance a Moral knows that he breathes, is simply playing Conviction, not a Sense with words. Who does not know that sen- Perception. sational consciousness has a palpable element

about it, which belongs to no intellectual belief, not even that of the exact sciences ? The scholar knows that " the square of the hypothenuse is equal," &c. ; but he does not feel it, as he feels his existence,

Romanists deny that a certain assurance of hope can be attained, except in the case of those eminent To'chinf AssS°ancT^ ^^i^ts and ascetics, to whom God gives it by special revelation — as to Stephen and Paul. In other cases, they judge it not attainable, not to be sought after, and not beneficial, even if attainable. Their motive is, obviously, to retain that power of priestcraft over souls, by which they may make gain of their absolutions, masses, indulgences, &c. The soul completely and finally justified in Christ, and assured thereof by grace, would be independent. 2 Cor. iii : 17.

The earlier Reformers, having learned to abhor this traf- ^ , , ^ . ficking in the peace of immortal souls, felt

Reformers Doctrine, • 1 1 j . . i ^ i > • r .i

impelled to teach that assurance is of the essence of saving faith, (though compelled to modify their assertion, in order to include even Bible saints). Thus, Calvin, Institutes, Bk. iii, ch. 2, § 7 : " Faith is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us," &c. Com. on Rom. viii : t6. " Sfat itaqiie Sententia, Neminem posse nomeiiari filhmi Dei, qui Jion se talem agnoscat." Of this, more anon.

The earlier Arminians (of Holland) taught that certain . . . assurance of final salvation is not attainable

in this life ; and that to doubt thereof is salu- tary, and conducive to humility. So far as assurance is predi- cated of our final perseverance, and our election, the later

702 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Arminians of Wesley's school must of course concur. But they teach, as one of their most distinctive points, that an assu- rance, of present conversion (followed by some hope of final salvation) is not only possible, but essential to every true be- liever. And this is the immediate teaching of the Holy Ghost to the heart, without the Word or self-examination. Yet assu- rance of hope is not made by them of the essence of faith. First, say they, come repentance and faith, then justification, then regeneration, then this inwrought consciousness of adop- tion— faith itself being defined as a believing and embracing of the gospel. Here we have the mystico-scholastic notion of a revealed and immediate witness, borrowed from Rome through a Moravian medium by Wesley, and asserted as the privilege and attainment of every true convert. A still more direct his- torical channel may be found for the transmission of this doc- trine into the Wesleyan System from the scholastic theology of the Romish monks. Wesley was a great admirer of Thomas a Kempis, of whose work he published an edition. Here, in the experience of this mystical scholastic, the idea appears in full form.

The Calvinistic world has now generally settled down upon

the doctrine of the Westminster Assembly, mi?sto-' Assembly.^ ^*" ^^^^ assurance of hope is not of the essence

of saving faith ; so that many believers may be justified though not having the former: and may remain long without it; but yet an infallible assurance, founded on a comparison of their hearts and lives with Scripture, and the teaching and light of the Holy Ghost, through and in the Word, is the privilege, and should be the aim of every true believer. Yet, this assurance, while both scriptural, reason- able and spiritual, and thus solid, may be more sensibly felt at sometimes, and may even be temporarily lost through sin, according to the remarks of our section I.

Before proceeding to argue this, let us briefly show (see

3. Assurance not of ^ect. on Faith,) what we have again asserted;

the essence of Faith, that assurance of hope is not of the essence

proved (a) by experi- of saving faith. First : not only do some,

yea many, who give other excellent eviden- ces by their fruits, in our days lack this assurance ; but some Bible saints lacked it at times. See Ps. xxxi : 22 ; Ixxvii 2, 5 ; Is. 1 : 10, &c. These men did not therefore cease to be believ- ers ? The proof is so obvious that Calvin is obliged to modify the assertions of which we have seen specimens, to include these cases, until he has virtually retracted his doctrine.

(b.) Second : this doctrine really adds to the proposition

T,, ^ .. „r , , which is the object of saving faith. That The Opposite Would . . • ,, 1 1 i- 1 ^ ^^

Place Another Propo- proposition IS : whosoever believeth shall

sition as Object of bc saved ;" and according to its very nature,

it must follow that the moment it is believed,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 7O3

the sinner is saved, whether he sees any other truth or not. To teach the view of the first Reformers, instead of exalting Christ, as they, with their modern imitators boastfully claim, really calls the soul away from Christ, and bids him look at another proposition touching the state and actings of his own soul, before he is permitted to trust in Christ. Our view scripturally directs him to find his comfort by looking wholly out of himself to Christ. Indeed, if we adhere strictly to the terms of the gospel, we shall see that the exercise of such a faith as Calvin describes is an impossibility, without a new and direct revela- tion in every case. Thus, "no man is saved in Christ till he has come to believe that Christ has saved him." But it IS only by believing that he is saved in Christ ; so that this definition of faith requires the effect to precede its own cause. The sinner must therefore find out the "benevolence of Christ towards himself," not from the gospel promise, but from the Holy Ghost directly, without the gospel. But are we ready for this ? Do we surrender the great truth, that Christ is the object, to which the Holy Ghost points the believing soul ? And is Christ revealed anywhere but in the Word ? I repeat: the Word nowhere says that A. B. shall be saved ; but that " whosoever believeth shall be saved." How then is A. B. to know scripturally, that he is actually saved ? Only by the rational deduction from the pair of premises, of which one is given by the Word, and the other by his regenerated con- sciousness : thus, " whosoever truly believes is saved." But I am conscious of truly believing; therefore I am saved." Now, my point is : that the mind cannot know the conclusion before it knows the minor premise thereof. On the contrary, it can only know the conclusion by first knowing both the premises. The student may see the rational and scriptural order copiously discussed by Turrettin, Loc. xiv. qu. 14, § 45 to 52. The attempt may be made to escape this argument by saying that since faith is a divine and supernatural grace inwrought by the almighty Spirit, it can proceed independent of this rational order. But T answer: Does not the Holy Ghost always act on the soul according to its rational laws ? Are not those laws of God's making? Does the assistance of the Spirit of all Truth result in the soul's acting abnormally, and against its proper laws? Unless then, there is a direct, immediate revelation to A. B. of his personal share in Christ, which no Calvinist asserts, there is no escape from my argument.

Third : if faith were such an exercise as this, when once Finally Lost, Could ^^^ finally impenitent reach hell, it will no not be Convicted for longer be fair to punish them for not believ- Unbehef. -j-^g unto salvation ; for it will then be mani-

fest that had they believed in Christ's benevolence towards themselves, it would not have been true. So that in refusing to believe, they acted so far properly : the Holy Ghost never

704 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

gave them a warrant to believe. But the premise which leads to this conclusion cannot be right ; for we know that God com- mands all men, everywhere, to repent and believe.

The scriptural argument against this exaggerated doctrine

may be much strengthened by recalling the

f "^P^^^f.^"J°^."^ passages where self-examination is enjoined

Seli-t,xamination. ^ ° 1 , ,• ,

on professed believers ; and that, not only as to the general propriety of their lives, but as to the very point, whether their state of grace is genuine. Here may be con- sulted Rom. v:4; i Cor. xi : 28 ; 2 Cor. xiii : 5 ; 2Pet. i:io. Marks or signs are also laid down, by which one may try whether he has true or spurious faith. Jno. xv '.14; I Epist. of John iii : 14, 19. This apostle tells his people, that he wrote the epistle in order to enable them to know that they had eternal life. Our argument is : that had the assurance of our own grace and salvation been an essential part of faith, believ- ers could not have been reasonably commanded to examine and settle the question : the simple fact that it needed examin- ation would have shown them no believers at all.

The scriptural argument advanced by Calvin for his

extreme view of faith amounts mainly to AeainstUs! this: that the Apostles generally address

believers and speak of them as persons assured in their hope, e. g., 2 Cor. xiii : 5 ; v : i ; i Peter i : 8 and 9 ; I Jno. v : 19, &c. But the first of these. passages, when properly construed, only says that men are reprobates unless they have Christ formed in them, not unless they recognize Him in them. And to all of them, we reply, that when the sacred writers thus address a whole Church of professed believers in terms appropriate only to the best, they only use the language of Christian hope, charity and courtesy. The proof is indisputable : for those very Corinthians are sharply rebuked by Paul, and exhorted to examine themselves jeal- ously; and John says that one object he had in writing his epistle, was to enable the people to come to an assurance of hope. 2 Pet. i : 10; i Jno. iii : 9, 10. The "we" which these apostles use are often no others than the apostles themselves, with any Christians of like attainments. But there is also some justice in the surmise, that assurance of hope was more gene- rally given in those primitive days, because the Church was called to testify, and to suffer more. So that if it should even appear that it was the common attainment of believers then, . this would not prove it of the essence of faith.

Those who revive the doctrine of Calvin here, also argue, that doubt and faith are opposites ; so that where there is doubt, there cannot be hearty faith : that my conception of faith is really no faith at all ; because it directs the inquirer to repose his trust, not upon the word and faithfulness of Christ, .but upon certain affections which he supposes he sees in him-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 705

self: and that, since consciousness attends all the operations of the soul, no man -can believe without being conscious he believes. They insist much on the immediate and intuitive nature of consciousnesss in this concern, and even represent it as a species of sense-instinct. It is compared to " the animal sense of departed pain and present ease."

The reply to the first of these points is, that the weak believer does not doubt Christ at all ; but "^^^'^^^ only himself. It is not on the major, but on

the minor premise of the believer's syllogism, that his con- sciousness is obscure. He can always say, with emphasis, that, were he only sure his deceitful heart was not deluding him with a dead faith, his assurance would be perfect. Now, mistrust of Christ is inconsistent with faith ; but we are yet to learn that self-mistrust is incompatible with that grace. The second point receives its solution from the same syllogism. What would the minor premise be worth to establish a conclusion, without the major? But the weak believer takes that propo- sition : " Whosoever believeth is saved," solely on the authority of God. When that same God tells him that there are two kinds of believing, only one of which fulfils the term of that proposition, and that the deceitfulness of the heart often causes the false kind to ape the true ; and when the humble soul inspects his own faith to make sure that it meets the terms of God's promise, prompted to do so by mistrust of self, it passes common wit to see, wherein that process is a " trusting in self, instead of God's word." To the argument from consciousness, there are two replies. One is : that distinct consciousness does not attend all the actions of the soul. There are, unquestion- ably, unconscious modifications of the mind. But it is more to our purpose to remark, that when the mind is confused by great haste, or the agitation of vivid emotions, or when the mental states are very complex, the remembered consciousness is obscured, or even lost. This well known truth evinces, that there may be a soul exercising a true though immature faith, and not distinctly conscious of it. But the other reply is still shorter : There is a spurious, as well as a genuine faith. If the man thinks he believes aright, he is conscious of exer- cising what he thinks is a right faith. This is the correct state- ment. Now, if the faith needs a discrimination to distinguish it from the dead faith, just to the same extent will the con- sciousness about it need the same discrimination.

When the reasonings of these theologians are analysed, they evidently disclose this basis, viz: Be- CoIsdoutne5s!''"*°^ cause the testimony of consciousness is immediate and intuitive, they have obvi- ously slidden into the idea that it is supra-rational. But the truth is, that consciousness is a rational faculty, just as truly as is the logical faculty. The only difference is, that its acts are • 45*

705 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

primary acts of the reason, while the deductive and compara- tive are secondary. Hence, there is the most perfect con- sistency in our representing, as Scripture does, such conscious- ness as cohering with, and assisted by, the deductions of the reason. And when Scripture gives the premises for such deductions, and the illumination of the Spirit guides them, it is hard to see why they should be held so unworthy to be com- pared with the primary intuitions ; seeing especially that these, if not guided by the same Spirit, must infallibly reflect what- ever counterfeit affection the deceitfulness of indwelling sin may have injected. How short and plain this statement: that our whole salvation is by the instrumentality of the truth? But truth only acts on man's intelligence ; whence the whole pro- cess of salvation must be as truly rational as it is spiritual.

We argue that the assurance of hope ^ J. Assurance Attain- j^ attainable, and should be sought by all believers ; first, presumptively : Because such a state of the case seems necessarily implied

in the duty of seeking Christ. God makes Because it is Our •. j ^ j. j. i i

Duty to be in Christ. ^^ ^^^ duty to use means to place ourselves m

union with Christ. Must there not be some

way for us to know whether we have obeyed and do obey this

command ? It will not avail to say, that God makes it our duty

to keep on striving just the same, to establish this union with

Christ, to the end of life. True, He commands us to repeat

our acts of faith and repentance all the time. But if we are not

in Christ we have never believed aright, so that the thing we

should be counselled to is, not to repeat those same abortive

efforts, but to set about a new kind of efforts. See Rev.

iii : 17, 18.

Second : The Scripture is full of commands, prayers, and

. promises for assurance of hope. i Cor.

Promises Imply it. • „o „ r^ ••• - r- •• t 1

' •' XI : 28 ; 2 Cor. xui : 5 ; i Cor. a : 12 ; John

xiv : 20; Heb. vi : 18 ; 2 Pet. i : 10; i Jno. ii : 3 ; v : 13 ; iii : 14, &c. ; Rev. ii : 17. It is true that God commands us to be " perfect," as He is perfect, and to pray for entire conformity to Christ ; while yet Calvinists do not believe that this perfection is attain- able in this life, by any. But here are commands of a more definite sort. e. g., I Cor. xi : 28 ; 2 Cor. xiii : 5, commands to use an immediate means, self-examination, for the attainment of an end immediately connected therewith, namely, assurance. Here are promises given, Jno. xiv : 20, &c., of the enjoyment of assurance. These things make out a different case.

Third : Both in Bible times and since, there have been instances of assurance actually enio^-ed

Has Actually Been ,i i /^ j' i i • .1 ^■

Attained. through (jrod s blessmg on the ordmary means

of grace. Since the days of inspiration,

saints of the greatest sobriety and truthfulness have professed

such assurance, and have been encouraged by it to brave the

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. v:4

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 7O7

most fearful trials. Such cases are widely distinguished from the multitudes of fanatical self-deceivers. In Bible days we find a number of other cases. Ps. ciii : 2 ; xvi : 8-10 ; Rom. V : I ; Gal. v : 22 ; i Thess. v : 9; 2 Tim. 1:12; i Pet. i : 8 ; i Jno. ii : 3 ; Phil, iv : 6, 7, &c.

To these it has been objected, that they were inspired cases. Note, e. g., in i Pet. i : 8, the Apostle was inspired but not the Christians to whom he wrote ! Moreover, there are very few cases in Scripture where we see any individual receive a revealed assurance directly of his own interest in redemp- tion. An examination will impress us how remarkably chary God has been of such helps ; and how generally peculiar spirit- ual charisms were bestowed for the benefit of the Church, and not of the individual.

Fourth : The nature of the graces in exercise in the Christian heart would show, that the true GracSshouMGKeit believer ought to be able, with due care, to come to a certain knowledge whether he has them. In other things, men can usually interpret their own consciousness with confidence ; they can certainly tell whether they love or hate, or believe in a fellow-man. Villains usually have a lurking consciousness that they are villains ; and efforts at self-deception are usually conscious. But Christian princi- ples are described as peculiar, and as the very strongest prin- ciples of the soul. Why then should not the love, joy, peace, trust, submission, penitence, of a renewed heart become pal- pable to it, with due self-examination ? We should remember also, that God, by His providential trials, calls to duty and sac- rifice for His sake and bereavements, speedily gives most believers excellent tests of genuine religious principles. It is objected, that " the heart is deceitful above aU things and desperately wicked. Who can know it ?" I reply, that the believer is not required to know everything about this deceitful heart, (an impossibility for him) in order to know his own con- version ; but only to know some things, And moreover, in knowing these, he is promised the aids of the Holy Ghost. And this leads us.

Last : To argue from the witnessing of the Holy Ghost.

„ , ^, ^ His testimony with our spirits is promised.

Holy Ghost Prom- • • , jr ji.i-

ises it by His Witness. ^^ various places and forms ; and surely this pledges God to make assurance a practica- ble attainment. See Rom. viii : 16; Eph. i : 13 ; iv : 30; 2 Cor. i : 22 ; I Jno. ii : 27.

Comparing sections 3 and 4, we may see that although the

,„ „, ,, ^^ dogma of the Reformers was erroneous, their

We Sliould Never ,-• ^ c t ■ ^i •

Tolerate its Absence. practical teehng concerning the importance

of assurance was much more correct than

ours. The saints of that age did not, like so many now, sit

year after year, in sinful indolence, complaining of the want of

708 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

assurance, and yet indifferent to its cultivation. To them it was as the vital breath, to be either enjoyed perpetually, or else, if not enjoyed, to be sought with intense exertion. Now, we say, that while Faith may subsist without assurance of hope, every believer can and ought to attain in due time to the latter. And though it may be absent from a true Christian, yet no true Christian can be satisfied with its absence. If he feels the reality of heaven, he will wish to know whether it is to be his. If he truly believes there is a hell, he must earnestly long to be certified that he shall avoid it. He cannot be content to plod on, not knowing whether or not his feet are on the blood of the Redeemer, whom he loves, whether the viper, sin, which he hates, still enfolds his heart ; whether he is to spend the approaching eternity bathing his weary soul in seas of heavenly rest, or buffeting the fiery billows of wrath. A willingness to be ignorant of these things is proof of indifference. The chief reason why so many live on without assurance is, that they have no true faith.

The means for attaining this assurance of hope are indi- 5. Means of Assu- cated by comparing the Confession, chap, ranee. Self-examina- xviii, § I, 2, 3. In the first place, he who '^°"' ^^^' would seek it successfully, must be a true

believer, (not clearly known to himself as such, for then there would be nothing farther to seek, but known as such to God). Hence he who seeks long, without attaining, should probably do his first works again. In the next place, he should endeavor to live, in heart and life, in a consistent manner, exercising those principles and that conduct which the Scriptures ascribe to true children of God. For, in the third place, one means of assur- ance is the comparison which the believer makes between the Bible description and his own heart and life. But the experi- ence of Christians, I am persuaded, finds this process of self- examination and comparison rather an indirect than a direct means of assurance. For a faithful self-inspection usually reveals so much that is defective, that its first result is rather the discouragement than the encouragement of hope. But this leads the humbled Christian to look away from himself to the Redeemer ; and thus assurance, which is the reflex act of faith, is strengthened by strengthening the direct actings of faith itself. Now, if there is nothing, or little, in himself which can be compared favorably with the Bible-measuring rule, of course assurance cannot properly result. This comparison, then is to be made in the work of self-examination, which must be hon- estly, thoroughly, and prayerfully performed. We say, prayer- fully, for man's heart is deceitful ; self-love, self-righteousness, spiritual pride, hope, and fear, are nearly interested in the decision, and the understanding of man is too feeble and uncer- tain an instrument, at best, to be trusted with the everlasting and irreparable issues of this question, when unaided.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. 2 Tim. 1:12

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 7O9

But here, we are again compelled to defend our Confession against the charge : that by directing the •ff^^^"^'^'^^°^'^°^ ^^^' believer to seek assurance of his gracious state from the discovery in himself of sup- posed graces, we are encouraging him to build on a self-right- eous foundation. It is strange that these writers do not remem- ber the fact, that the Bible commands Christians (see p. 704,) to do the very thing they denounce. And to a plain mind, it seems a most perverse charge, that it is self-righteous to infer from his possession of certain qualities in oneself that God is recon- ciled to him ; when the very premise of his inference is, that he could never have wrought these qualities in himself; but if they are in him, they were wrought by sovereign grace. The ques- tion to be settled for our assurance is : Is God reconciled to us ? The process is : " Yes, God is reconciled " (conclusion) " because we find in ourselves changes which He alone can work ;" (pre- mise) "and which only unbought love prompted Him to work." Where is the self-righteousness of this ? How does it lead to boasting, or vain confidence ? Let us, for illustration, compare the process by which our opponents suppose the immediate consciousness of believing ministers the assurance of salvation to every believer immediately. If that process holds, it yet involves thus much of an illation : " My consciousness of faith assures me I am saved, because God works faith in none but the saved." Now why is not the parallel process equally valid for any other grace, which only God works ? He assures us, that "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, meekness, tem- perance" are as truly " fruits of the Spirit," as faith is. (Gal. v : 22). The only difference is, that faith is related to the other graces as a seminal principle : and that it is the organ of our justification : but this does not change the case. Why is it self-confidence and self-righteousness to infer God's favour from other effects which He alone works, and works only in His own people : and yet so scriptural to infer our safety from the faith which God works in us ? And since there is a spurious faith, which is discriminated from the genuine by the lack of right fruits, it is too obvious to be disputed, that we should examine those fruits, in order to assure ourselves. So evident is this, that we find even Calvin, (Bk. iii : Ch. ii : § 7,) in view of the existence of a dead faith simulating the living, concede the doctrine. " In the meantime, the faithful are taught to examine themselves with solicitude and humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the assurance of faith." And Luther, as Dorner assures us, sometimes speaks more scripturally than Calvin, distinguishing between " an assuring faith" (the fuller attainment) and " a receiving faith," which he regards as true faith, and justifying. Nor " did he shrink from treating the new life of love, which is forming, as an evidence of faith."

It may be argued, that unless the inward marks are infal-

7lO SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Spiritual Discernment lible, no assurance of our salvation can be Necessary on Either founded on them ; but their scheme offers. ^'^^^- directly the infallible promise of God, as the

exclusive basis of the assurance. I answer by referring the student to the fact, that the same quickening grace which bestows faith, also bestows spiritual discernment. How else did the sinner, blind by nature, see " the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ?" This spiritual discernment is promised to direct the believer in his examination.

When arguing for these scriptural means, we should not forget that the habit of introspection may be ^Jntrospection Diffi- abused, to divert the eyes of the soul too much from Christ. Dr. Chalmers, in the place cited, has admirably illustrated a law of the mind, which should caution us against that abuse. The essential condition for the conscious flow of any affection is the presence of its object, at least in thought, before the mind. Thus, Christ must be directly before the thought, in order for love to Christ to flow forth consciously to Him. But when we begin to inspect our love for Him, we substitute another object. Hence the current of our love subsides as soon as we attempt to mea- sure it. This explains a difficulty which has embarrassed many Christians : and it presents another ground for asserting the necessity of the Spirits' witness, that we may safely inter- pret our own feelings.

This witnessing, saith the Confession, is without extraordi- nary revelation. His agencies here, are

The Witness What ? •■ u-i i, *. ^i 4. ^.t • j

doubtless what they are, as to their degree

and nature, in His other sanctifying operations through the Word ; neither more nor less inscrutable, and just to the same extent supernatural. Thus, it is His to illuminate the soul, giving to the understanding spiritual apprehensions of Truth. It is His to shine upon His own work in our hearts, both bright- ening it, and aiding us in the comparison of it. It is His to stimulate our righteousness; caution, and impartiality, by renew- ing and sanctifying the dispositions, and quickening our appre- hensions of the Divine Judge, and of the stake at issue. Thus the comparison between our graces and the Bible standard, is made under His superintendence and light ; so that while He communicates no new revealed fact, contributes nothing new, so to speak, to the material of the comparison, or of the measuring rule, the result of the measurement is trustworthy. If such a soul finds in itself the evident actings of such graces as the Bible calls for, then it has an assurance which is both scriptural and reasonable and spiritual. It is according to the rule of Scrip- ture. It is reached according to the laws of the human under- standing, intelligently and solidly. But best of all, it is also formed under the superintendence of the Holy Ghost, and He enables the humble, prayerful inquirer, to repose on it

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. /I I

with " a hope inexpressible and full of glory. " Such an assurance may well be called infallible. It maybe aped indeed, so far as human judgment can distinguish, by false security ; but the difference is known to God, and to the believer, con- scious as he is of thorough candour, humility and submission ; and the judgment day will reveal the difference.

Now the ideas of the Wesleyan concerning this witness of the Holy Ghost, are far different. He

f^^^lfrf'^ Doctnne ^akes it indeed an independent revelation, of the Witness. ^i ,. ,■

by which the Holy Ghost reveals immedi- ately to the convert's mind, without a mediate process of self- examination and "comparison, that he is now reconciled. All the arguments on which they rely to establish this view, against ours, may be reduced to two : that two witnesses are said (Rom. viii : i6), to concur, whereas our view seems to make no other testimony than that of our own spirits (assisted indeed by the Holy Ghost), and that the assurance cannot proceed mediately from the believer's consciousness of Christian affec- tions within ; because those affections are only evoked by the assurance of our adoption, i Jno. iv : 19. To the first of these I reply, their view excludes the witnessing of the believer's spirit at least as much as ours seems to exclude that of God's. But, how can this concurrence of two witnesses be better described than in such a case as we have sup- ^^ ^^^' posed ? We protest that our view does most

fully and fairly avow the concurrence of God's Holy Ghost in the witnessing. He witnesseth along with our spirits. To the second argument, we reply that is worthless to all except a Synergist. It is simply absurd, in our view, to assert that the believer can never have any regenerate exercises characteristic of the new life, until after he has an assurance of his adoption : when we believe, and have proved, that faith itself is a regen- erate exercise, as well as repentance. Second : it is false that the renewed soul has no regenerate exercises till they are evoked by an assurance of its acceptance. This is not the sense of Jno. iv: 19. The first love of the new-born soul is not thus mercenary ; it cannot help loving, and repenting, and ador- ing, though unconscious of hope. And last : surely the exhibi- tion of the goodness, grace, truth and love of God made to all sinners in Jno. iii : 16, is enough to evoke the first actings of love on the new-born sinner's part, while he is still unconscious of a personal hope. To say that a regenerate soul could look at this lovely exhibition of God's mercy towards "whosoever will receive it," and feel no love, because forsooth not yet assured of its own personal interest in it, is to say that that soul is still in the gall of bitterness.

This idea of an immediate witness we disprove, 1st, by the

fact that self-examination is commanded, Refutation, Farther. i-v uu a j. i.- 1 j

which would be supernuous to him already

712 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

assured by a revelation, 2nd. Because revelations have ceased, and Christians are now remanded to Scripture as the whole and sole source of all the religious informations needed to carry the soul to heaven. Jno. v : 39 ; i Cor. xiii : 8; 2 Tim. iii : 15 -1 7. 3rd. It contradicts the experience of the very best converts [tried by their fruits], who often exhibit good marks of peni- tence, submission, love : when their souls are so absorbed by the sense of God's holiness and majesty, and their own vileness, that they dare not rejoice in their acceptance. And it equally contradicts the experience of maturer converts, who usually have their assurance dawn slightly, and grow gradually, as their experience and graces grow. See Is. xlii : 16; *R.om. v;4. 4th. It opens the doors for untold self-deceptions, mistaking the whispers of self-love, carnal security, spiritual pride, fanaticism, or Satan, for this super-scriptural witness. The most biting argument against it is in the history of Wesleyan revivals, with their spurious conversions. John Wesley was himself so sensible of this objection, that he appeals to the other concur- rent witnessing, that of the Christian's consciousness compared with Scripture, to show him that the previous witness is the Holy Ghost, not a delusion. This virtually surrenders his dogma: for this witness of the believer's spirit, although mentioned last, is in reality precedent in order. As the ambasador's credentials must precede his recognition, so this witnessing of the concious graces in the heart must give credence to the immediate impres- sion!

Assurance of hope, scripturally founded, will result in advantage only. It increases spiritual joy. 6. Effects of Assur- 'pj^^g [^ promotes usefulness, Nehemiah viii : ance Holy. -^ ^ 111 -/--it

10. It unseals the heart to praise God. It stimulates evangelical labours, i Cor. xv:58. It nerves us for self-denial. It lifts us above carnal temptations. Phil, iv : 7.

Some have thought the assurance of hope arrogant, as though it were modest and seemly to be in suspense con- cerning our salvation. I answer: If we expected to save our- selves, so it would be. To be in suspense whether Christ is able, and willing, and faithful, surely is no mark of our humil- ity; but, on the contrary, it is a dishonor to Him.

The main objection, however, is, that assurance, coupled with the doctrine of perseverance of saints, will become the sure occasion of spiritual indolence and carnal security. We reply, that if an unrenewed man should persuade him- self unscripturally that he is in Christ, this result would surely follow. But how can it follow to that man who scripturally founds his hope on the existence in himself of a disposition to flee from sin, strive after holiness, and fight the good fight of faith ? He hopes he is a Christian, only because he sees reason to hope that he shall strive to the end. The perception in him- self of the depraving consequence charged above, would at

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. /IS

■once vitiate the evidence that he was, or ever had been, a child of God just in proportion as it was reahzed. The watchtul garrisoii are confident that they shall not fall victims to a sur- prise because they intend to watch. Such assurance only stimulates effort. The. drunken rioters go to sleep flattermg themselves they shall not be surprised ; but this is presumption, not assurance. In the actual experiences of Christians, he who enioys the grace of assurance ever walks most caretuUy and tendery before his God, lest the precious elixir be lost through negligence, See Ps. cxxxix : 21, 24; 2 Cor. v : 6-9 ; Heb.

VI : 9-1 2,

SYLLABUS

1. What is the definition, and what the parts of prayer ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. xxi. Shorter Cat. Qu. 98 to end. Directoiy of Worship, chs. 5, 15, Dick, Lect. 93. Ridgley, Qu. 178.

2. Who is the proper object of prayer?

Dick, Lect. 93. Ridgley, Qu. 179. . , • ^^ „„j

3. What are the proper grounds by which the duty of prayer is sustained and

enforced ^^^^^ ^^^ ^iii^ ch. 10. Dick,;Lect. 93- Hill, bk. v. § 3. Knapp, § 133,

Appendix. , , r r^ a'^

4 Refute the objections to the reasonableness of prayer, drawn from Ood s

omniscience, immutability, independence, decrees: and from the stability of Nature.

■ So. Presb. Rev., Jan. 1870. Art. i. Dr. Girardeau. Chalmers' Nat Theol.

bk V ch. 3. Dick, Lect. 93. McCosh, Div. Gov. bk. ii, ch. 2, | 5, 6. Duke

of Argyll, " Reign of Law," ch. 2. Sensuallstic Phil, of 19th Cent. ch. 13. 15 What is the rule of prayer, and what the qualities of acceptable prayer ?

Dick, as above, and Lect. 94. Pictet, as above. Ridgley, Qu. 185, 186. 6 What is the nature and extent of the warrant given us to expect answers ! ' See e g.. Matt, vii : 7, 8 ; Mark, xi : 24. Dick, Lect. 94. Pictet, as above.

Dr.' Leonard Wood's Lectures, 95-99. So. Presb. Rev., Jan. 1872., Art. 1.

Theol. of Plym., Br. Life of Trust, or Biogi-aphy of the Rev. Geo. Muller ot

7.' Show that prayer should be both secret, social, ejaculatory, and stated.

Dick, Lect. 94. 8. What model is given for our prayers ? ,• • c i

Dick, Lect. 95. " See on the Whole, Magee on Atonement, dissertation btli ;

and Dr. Leonard Wood's Lectures, 95 to 99.

ttpRAYER is an offering up of our desires unto God for ^ things agreeable to His will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowl- I. Definition. edgement of His mercies."

Its several parts are stated, in the Directory for Worship, to be adoration, thanksgiving, confession, petition', intercession and pleading. See Directory. Ch. v : § 2.

God alone is the proper object of religious worship. Matt

714 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

iv : lO, The general reason for this is, that Proper Object ^ ^^ He alonc possesses the attributes which are imphed in the offer of reHgious worship. The Beign who is to be worshipped by all the Church must be omniscient. Otherwise our prayers would never reach His ears. And if conveyed to Him, they would utterly confound and overwhelm any finite understanding, in the attempt to distin- guish, comprehend, and judge concerning them. Then, more- over, the being to whom we resort in prayer, njust be all-wise, in order to know infallibly what is best for us, and how to pro- cure it. Such omniscience as we have above described implies, of course, omnipresence. Second. This Lord must be infin- itely good, otherwise we should have no sufficient warrant to carry Him our wants, and His benevolence would be over- taxed by such constant and innumerable appeals. Third. He must be almighty, else He is no adequate refuge and depend- ence for our souls, in all exigencies. Some most urgent wants and dangers might arise, which only omnipotence could meet. For these reasons the offering of prayer is a virtual ascrip- tion of divinity to its object; and we reject the PCTsons (T/Trinity" ^^^ sucli appeals to saints and angels as idol- atrous. For us sinners, the door of prayer is only opened by the Covenant of Grace. (Why ?) Now we have seen that God the Father stands economically as the represent- ative of the whole Trinity, on the part of the Godhead, as Christ the Son stands as sinner's representative in that transac- tion. Hence prayer is usually addressed to the Father through the Son, and by the Spirit. Eph. ii : i8. But we must not imagine that one person is more properly the object of prayer than another. All are made alike objects of worship, in the apos- tolic benediction, 2 Cor. xiii : 14, in the formula of baptism, and in Rev. i : 4. But more : we find Jesus Christ, so to speak, the separate object of worship, in Gen. xviii : 23; Josh, v : 14; Acts vii : 59; Rev. i : 17: v; 8; Heb. i : 6, etc. These examples authorize us to address a distinct petition to either of the Persons.

The duty of prayer reposes immediately on God's com- 3. The Duty Reas- niand, wlio " wills that men pray every- onable. (a.) It Culti- where." I Tim. ii : 8. But this is a precept vates lety. which most eminently commends itself to

every man's conscience in the sight of God, because so clearly founded in nature. That is there are numerous and powerful reasons proceeding out of our very relations to God, for the duty of prayer. That this is true is obviously suggested by the strength of the instinct of devotion in every rational breast. The immediate prompting of the sense of want or sin, in the crea- ture, is to make him say : " Lead ine to the Rock that is higher than L" Ps. Ixi : 2. And to pray, is mentioned of Saul as the characteristic evidence that he had learned to fear God. Acts

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 7 1 5

ix : II. Wherever there is religion, true or false, there is prayer. Even the speculative atheist, when pressed by danger, has been known to belie his pretended creed, by calling in anguish upon the God whom he had denied. This natural instinct of prayer reposes for its ground on God's perfections, and man's dependence and wants. And so long as these two facts remain what they are, man must be a praying creature. Let the student remem- ber, also, that man, while finite and dependent, is also an essen- tially active creature. Emotion, and the expression of emotion, are the unavoidable, because natural outgoings of his powers. He cannot but put forth his activity in efforts tending to the objects of his desires ; he must cease first to be man ; and prayer is the inevitable, the natural effort of the dependent creature, in view of exegencies above his own power. To tell him who believes in a God, not to pray, is to command him to cease to be a man.

Prayer is the natural homage due from the creature to his , ^ „ ^ heavenly Father. God being Himself all

Is Gods Due. 11 j J.l 10 ^ /^- r

blessed, and the sole Source and Giver of blessedness, can receive no recompense from any creature. But is no form of homage therefore due ? To say this, would be to say that the creature owes God nothing, because God bestows so much ! It would extirpate religion practically from the universe. Now, I assert, in opposition to the Rationalistic Deists, who say that the only reasonable homage is a virtuous life, and the cultivation of right emotions ; that prayer also is more directly, and still more naturally, that reasonable homage. God must bestow on man all the good he receives ; then man ought to ask for all that good. It is the homage to God's benef- ficent power, appropriate to a creature dependent, yet intelli- gent and active. Man ought to thank God for all good ; it is- the natural homage due from receiver to Giver. Man ought to confess all his sin and guilt ; it is the natural homage due from sinfulness to sovereign holiness. Man ought to deprecate God's anger; it is the appropriate homage due from conscious guilt to power and righteousness. Man ought to praise God's per- fections. Thus only can the moral intelligence God has created, pay to Him its tribute of intellectual service. I should like to see the reasoning analyzed, by which these skeptics are led to admit that the creature does owe to God the homage of a virtu- ous life and affections. I will pledge myself to show that the same reasoning equally proves he owes the homage of prayer. Conceive of God as bestowing all the forms of good on man which his dependent nature needs, without requiring any homage of prayer from man as the means of its bestowal ; and you will immediately have, man being such as he is (an active being), a system of practical atheism. Rehg- ion, relation between man and God will be at an end.

7l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

True, God would be related to man, but not man to God ! Anomalous and guilty condition ! No feeling of dependence, reverence, gratitude, wholesome fear, would find expression from the creature.

This leads us, third, to the important remark, that prayer

^ ,, ^^ is the natural means of grace appropriate to

Is Means of Grace, , i , -n • . • ^ i i ^

Perse. the creature, rrayer is not intended to pro-

duce a change in God, but in us. Rev. Rowland Hill explained to sailors: "The man in the skiff at the stern of a man-of war, does not pull the ship to himself, in hauling at the line, but pulls the skiff to the ship. This line is prayer. Prayer does not draw God down to us, but draws us up to God, and thus establishes the connection." Now, as we have seen, man being an essentially active creature, the exercise of all those right affections which constitute gracious charac- ter necessitates their expression. And again,to refuse expression to an affection chokes it; to give it its appropriate expression fosters and strengthens it. See examples. We see at once, therefore, how prayer is a natural and necessary means for all gracious growth. Let us exemplify in detail. Faith is a mother grace to all others ; but prayer is the natural and necessary expression of faith ; it is its language, its vital breath. In spiritual desire the life of religion may be said to consist. Desire is implied in faith itself, for a man does not trust for what he does not want, and it is yet more manifest in hope. For hope is but desire, encouraged by the prospect of obtaining the desired object. Repentance includes a desire for deliverance from sin and attainment of holiness. Love of God includes a desire for communion with Him, and for His favour. So that it would not be very inaccurate to say that practical religion con- sists in the exercise of holy desires. But what is prayer, except "the offering up of our desires to God?" Prayer is the vital breath of religion in the soul. Again, it cultivates our sense of dependence and of God's sovereignty. By confessing our sins, the sense of sin is deepened. By rendering thanks, grati- tude is enlivened. By adoring the divine perfections, we are changed into the same image, from glory to glory. From all this it is apparent that prayer is the Christian's vital breath. If God had not required it, the Christian would be compelled to offer it by his own irrepressible promptings. If he were taught to believe that it was not onl}- useless, but wrong, he would doubtless offer it in his heart in spite of himself, even though he were obliged to accompany it with a petition that God would forgive the offering. To have no prayer is, for man, to have no religion.

But last, and chiefly, prayc is a means of grace, because

^, . o • r^ J • J G.06. has appointed it as the instrument of Chiefly; IS Ordained , y\ tt- <-- • • 1 • n t •

in God's Promises. vad^n s receiving His Spintal influences. It is

enough for the Christian to know that all his

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 717

growth in grace is dependent, and that God hath ordained : "he that asketh receiveth."

Thus we see the high and essential grounds on which the duty of prayer rests, grounds laid in the very natures of God and of man, and in the relations between the two.

But it is from the nature of God that the rationalistic objections are drawn against the reasonable- of'pVay^'obS;^^^^ ness Of the duty._ It is said, "Since God is omniscient, there is no meaning in our telling Him our wants, for He knows them already, better than we do. Since He is good. He already feels every proper impulse to make us happy, and to relieve our pains; and does not need any persuading on our part, to incline Him to mercy. And since He is immutable, and has already determined from eter- nity, every act of His future agency, by an unchangeable decree, to hope to change God by our importunity, is worse than useless ; it is a reproach to Him. Hence there is nothing for the wise man to do, but to receive His allotments with calm submission, and to honour Him by imitating His moral perfec- tions."

We reply : to him who had any reverence for the Scrip-

^ 1 D 1 ture these assertions of God's wisdom and

(jeneral Keply. , 111

goodness would be arguments to prove, instead of disproving, the propriety of prayer. For has not this wise and good being commanded prayer ? Has He not seen fit to appoint prayer as the instrument for receiving His purposed blessings ? Then, to the humble mind, there is the best proof that prayer is reasonable. But farther, we have already remarked that, so far as prayer is intended to produce any change, it is not a change in God, but in us. He does not command it because He needs to be informed of our wants, or to be made willing to help. He commands it because He has seen fit to ordain it as the appointed means for reception of His blessings. And we have seen abundant reasons why it is a suitable means to be thus ordained : a wise means, a right means. It is a necessary and instinctive outgoing of the rightly feeling soul. It is the proper homage for man to render God. It is an influence wholesome for man's soul itself. And now, God having seen these good reasons (doubtless with others) for ordaining prayer as the means of receiving His favour ; there is nothing in His wisdom, goodness, or immutability, inconsist- ent with His regular enforcement of the rule, " ask, and ye shall receive."

Not in His goodness : For if any one should take such a

^ ,, „ , view of the Divine benevolence as to suppose

Gods Benevolence ,1 - •. -n • 1 , , ^^

No Objection. ^^^^^ ^^ Will m ever)^ case bestow on the crea-

ture such blessings as God's nature and pur- pose permit, without requiring to be persuaded by the creature's use of means, the whole course of His providence-

71 8 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

would refute it. God is benevolent in bestowing on multitudes of farmers the fruits of the earth. If any one trusts to His immutable goodness, without plowing and sowing his field, he will certainly be disappointed. The truth is just here : that God is infinitely benevolent, but still, it is a benevolence exer- cised always in harmony with His wisdom, and with all His other attributes. The question then is : Have God's wisdom, sovereignty, and other attributes, impelled Him to decide that He cannot consistently give some particular gifts except to those that ask? If so, it is vain to argue from His infinite goodness. Nor do God's decree and unchangeableness show that it is

inconsistent in Him to answer prayer. His His Immutability no • , i -i-, i , • ^ • i- vi

Objection. mimutability does not consist in acting with

a mechanical sameness, irrespective of change of circumstances. It is an immutability of principles. The sameness of principle dictates a change of conduct when outward circumstances change. To refuse to change in such cases would often be mutability. And the familiar old answer here applies, that God's decree embraces the means as much as the end. Wherever it was His eternal purpose that any crea- ture should receive grace, it was His purpose equally that he should ask. In a word, these objections are just the same with those of the vulgar fatalist, who objects that, because "what is to be, will be," therefore it is of no use to make any effort. There is no difference whatever in the refinement or wisdom of the objectors. To be consistent, these rationalists who refuse to pray should also refuse to plow, to sow, to cultivate, to take medicine when sick, to watch against danger, &c.

The difficulty, however, which is now thought most formid- able, and is most frequently advanced by bility''of Nature!™ ^' Rationalists, is that drawn from the stability of nature. The argument of the objection is, that except where God acts supernaturally, as in regenera- tion and the resurrection, He acts only through second causes ; that the tie between cause and effect is efficient, and the result regular ; so that each effect is potentially in its ante- cedent cause, which is, very probably, an event that has already occurred, and is therefore irrevocable. Hence, it is impossible but that the effect must follow, pray as we may against it; unless God will miraculously break the ties of natural causa- tion ; but that, we know, He will not do.

Now, this is either an argument «<-/ ignoj-antiavi, or it is „ ■ 1 r 1 ' atheistic. The simple, popular (and sufficient)

view which refutes it is : That God governs this world in every natural event through His special provi- dence ; and the regular laws of nature are only the uniform modes of those second causes, which He employs to do so. Now, the objection is simply this : that God has constructed a machine, which is so perfect, and so completely His, that He

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 7I9

cannot modify its action without breaking it ! That is, His success has been so complete, in constructing this machine of nature to work His intended ends, that He has shut Himself out of His own handiwork ! Such is the absurdity which the matter must wear in the hands of a theist. Nature is a machine which God made and now uses to effect a set of ends, all of which were foreseen and purposed ; and among which were all the destined answers to the acceptable prayers foreseen to be uttered. Of course God has not so made it as to exclude Himself and His own purposes. How does He manage the machine to make it work those purposes ? We may not know how; but this is no evidence that He does not. The inference from His general wisdom and promise is proof enough that He can and does. A very good illustration may be taken from a railroad train. It is propelled, not by an animal which has senses to hear command, but by a steam engine. The mechan- ical force exerted is irresistible by man. The conditions of its movement are the most rigidly methodical ; only up and down one track, within certain times. But there is a Conductor ; and his personal will can arrest it at the request of the feeblest child.

But to be more exact : The objector urges that the general laws of nature are stable. Grant it. What Gena^l^Law.^^ ° ^ ^^ nature? It is a universe of matter and mind related, and not of matter only. Now only postulate that desire, prayer, and the answers to prayer are among those general laws, which, as a complex whole, have been assigned to regulate nature, and the uniformity of nature only confirms the hope of answers to prayers. Has the phil- osopher explored all the ties of natural causation made by God ? He does not pretend so. Then it may be that among the unex- plored ties are some subtle and unexplained bonds which con- nect prayers with their answers as natural causes and effects. And all that we have said, in showing how natural prayer is to creatures, makes the postulate probable.

Again. Does natural law govern the universe ? Or, does God Rules by His ^ro*^ govern it by natural law ? Men perpet- Laws of Nature as He ually cheat themselves with the idea that law ^^^^^^^* is a power, whereas it is simply the method

of a power. Whence the power of the natural second cause ? Originally from God ; and its working is maintained and regu- lated by God. Hence it is utterly improbable (whether we can comprehend or not) that God should have so arranged His own power communicated to His works as to obstruct His own per- sonal will. Remember that God is personal, and not a mere anivia vutndi. He is a sovereign moral Person.

Last, recurring to the views given in explanation of God's

providence (Lect. xxv), you will be reminded,

allTecoSTauTes! '" that power in second causes only acts when

the suitable relations are established between

720 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

them and those things which are to be the recipients of the effects : that among all possible relations, many might be fruit- ful of no effects, and others of very different effects : That hence, there is here, room for the perpetual, present manipu- lation of the invisible Hand in providence. Thus, God always has resources to modify the acting of natural causes, they still acting according to their natures. As I remarked : All God's providence is special ; and the supernatural is always with the natural ; else the latter could not be.

The proposal has been made by modern Materialists, to test the efficacy of prayer by a physical test. Prayer. ^"^^ ^^ ° such as is applied to try the efficacy of mate- rial causes. The absurdity, as well as impiety of this proposal appears from two remarks. One is, that the physical answers to prayer; or in other words, those effects which confer physical change and benefit, belong to that class of things which, as we shall show anon, God has never bound Himself, by any categorical promise, to bestow. We are encouraged to pray for them ; but God holds the answer con- tingent to us, deciding to give or withhold according as He sees best in His secret sovereignty. Hence, in the only cases where a physical test could possibly apply, there is no definite promise to be tested. The other remark is: that unless the atheist's theory be demonstrated, it will remain at least possi- ble that we shall find a personal will dispensing the answer to prayer. This proposal then requires this venerable Person to submit Himself to an additional test of His fidelity, after He has given His promise; and that on a demand which may always appear to Him petulant and insolent. So that, unless the pro- posed test is guilty of the sophism of begging the very ques- tion to be ascertained, it is always presumable, that this majes- tic Person may choose to refuse all response to the proposed test, and may deem this refusal necessary to His self-respect. In the parallel case, there is every probability that anyone of these Materialists would be silent, and stand on his dignity. If there is a God, (the thing to be ascertained in this inquiry) shall He not consult His self-respect? The proposed method of inquiry is then worthless.

The proper rule of prayer is the whole Word of God. Not only are its instances of inspired devotion 5. Rule of rayei. ^^^ exemplars, and its promises our warrant; its precepts are the measure of our petitions, and its threaten- ings the stimulants. There is no part of Scripture which may not minister to the guidance of the Christian's prayers. But further, the Word of God is the rule of our prayers also in this sense, that all which it does not authorize, is excluded. Prayer being a homage to God, it is for Him to say what worship He will accept ; all else is not homage, but presumption. Again, both man's blindness and corruption, and God's infinitude for-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 721

bid that we should undertake to devise acts of worship, of our own motion. They will be too apt to partake of some of our depravity, or else to lead in some way, unforeseen to us, to developments of depravity. And God's nature is too inscru- table to our feeble minds, for us to undertake to infer from it, except as we are guided by the light of the Word. Hence, the strict Protestant eschews " will worship" as a breach of the decalogue.

When we examine the inspired rule of prayer, we find that, to be acceptable, it must be sincere and hearty;

abS^'pra CT°^ ^''''^''^' ^^ ^^^^ ^^ addressed to God with faith in ^^^^^* Christ ; it must be for objects agreeable to

God's will ; it must be prompted by the Holy Ghost ; it must be accompanied with genuine repentance and gratitude. See Ps. Ixii : 8 ; Jer. xxix : 13 ; Jno. xiv : 6 ; i Jno. v : 14, 15 ; Rom. viii : 26 ; Phil, iv : 6, 7 ; i Jno. iii : 22 ; Ps. Ixvi : 18 ; Heb. xi : 6, &c.

The more immediate model which God has given for our prayer, is the Lord's prayer. That it was not intended for a liturgy to be servilely followed, our authors have shown, in their discussions of liturgies. But that it was intended both as a general guide in the structure of our own petitions, and as a form whose very words are to be employed by us on proper occasions, is manifest. cf. Matt, vi : 9; Luke xi : 2. The most plausible objection to it, as a model for Christians is, that it contains no express reference to a Mediator, and answer through His merit and intercession. The answer is, that it is an Old Testament prayer : is intended as such, because that dispensation was still standing. When it was about to close, Christ completed this feature of it, by enjoining the use of His name. See John xiv : 13 ; xv : 16 ; xvi : 23, 24.

We apprehend that there is much vagueness in the views of Christians concerning the nature and ex- rant f(^^Answer ^^^'^' ^^"^ °^ the warrant which they have to expert an answer to their prayers. Some err by de- fect, forming no definite view of the ground on which their faith is entitled to rest ; and consequently, approaching the throne of Grace with no lively hopes whatever. Others err by excess, holding the promises in a sense God did not intend them to bear ; and consequently their hopes are fanatical and super- stitious. Now, in order that our faith may be firm, it must be correct and intelligent. The consequence of these erroneous views ultimately is disappointment, and hence, either self-accu- sation, or skepticism.

The warrant for prayer is of course to be sought, immedi- ately, in the promises. Of these some seem scrnTeSd Ref^tecP^' ^^^ emphatic : e. g.. Matt, vii : 7 ; Mark xi : 24. On promises of the latter class especi- ally, some have built a theory of prayer, thus : that the only 46*

722

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

reason any prayer of one in a state of grace, and actuated in the main by pious motives, is not specifically and infallibly answered, is, that it was not offered in faith, and that wherever such a saint fully believes that he shall receive that which he asks, he will receive it, as surely as inspiration. And such prayer it was the fashion to dignify with the title, "the prayer of faith," among some religionists. In opposition, I would urge that common sense refutes it ; and shows that practically there is a limitation to these general promises of answer to prayer. Who believes that he can, provided his motives are in the main pious, pray away a spell of illness, or raise up a sick friend, or convert an individual sinner, with infallible certainty ? But may they not put in a saving clause by saying : " Such prayers are dictated by the Holy Ghost? This makes all right." Ans. : The Christian has no mode of distinguishing the specific cases of spiritual impulse in his own heart ; because the Holy Ghost operates in and through his natural capacities. Hence, to the Christian, the universal warrant is practically lacking. It is manifestly incompetent to, the Christian to say, in advance of the answer : The Spirit dictates this prayer beyond doubt. Second : Scripture refutes it ; for there are clear cases of peti- tions of Bible saints, made in faith, piety, urgency, and not specifically answered. See 2 Sam. xii : i6, 19 ; 2 Cor. xii : 8- 10 : and above all, Matt, xxvi : 39. And third: We can hardly suppose that God would abdicate His omniscience in His deal- ings towards the very objects of His redeeming love, and make their misguided, though pious desires the absolute rule of His conduct towards them. This would be the literal result, were He absolutely pledged to do for shortsighted Christians exactly what they, with pious motives, ask of Him. We may add here, that such an assumption is refuted by God's claim to chastise believers for their profit. They of course pray, and innocently pray for exemption. (" Remove Thy stroke from me ; for I am consumed by the blow of Thine hand.") If God were under bond to hear every prayer of faith. He would have to lay down the rod in each case, as soon as it was taken up.

There is then, of course, some practical limitation in these

general promises. What is it ? I answer, Scriptural Limitations -^ j ^ ^^ f j jj^ ^|^g ^l^^^g tenour of Scrip- to Warrant. at h • 1 1 r

ture. And generally m the language 01 i

Jno. v : 14. All our prayers shall be specifically answered in God's time and way, but with literal and absolute accuracy, if they are believing and pious prayers, and for things according to God's will. Now there are only two ways to find out what things are such ; one is by special revelation, as in the case of faith of miracles, and petitions for them ; the other is by the Bible. Here the explanation of that erroneous view of the warrant of prayer, above described, is made easy and plain. It is said that if the Christian prays with right motives, and with

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 723

an assured belief that he shall obtain, he will obtain ; no matter what he asks, (unless it be something unlawful). Yes, but what warrant has he for the belief that he shall obtain ? Faith, with- out an intelligible warrant, is sheer presumption. Suppose, for instance, the object of petition is the recovery of a sick friend ; where does the applicant read God's pledge of a specific answer to that prayer ? Certainly not in Scripture. Does he pretend a direct spiritual communication ? Hardly. He has no specific warrant at all ; and if he works himself up into a notion that he is assured of the answer, it is but a baseless fantasy, rather insulting than honourable to God. I know that pious biography is full of supposed instances of this kind, as when Luther is said to have prayed for the recovery of Melancthon. These are the follies of good men ; and yet God's abounding mercy may in some cases answer prayers thus blemished.

We return then to Scripture, and ask again, what is the Two Classes of extent of the warrant there found ? The Good. The Warrant answer is, that God, both by promise and for First Only is Abso- example, clearly holds out two classes of objects for which Christians pray. One is the class of which an instance has just been cited — objects natur- ally desirable, and in themselves innocent, '^^hich yet are not essential to redemption ; such as recovery from sickness, recovery of friends, good name, daily bread, deliverance from persecution, conversion of particular sinners, &c., &c. It is right to pray for such things ; it is even Commanded : and we have ground, in the benevolence, love, and power of God, and tender sympathy of the Mediator, to hope for the specific answer. But still the truest believer will offer those prayers with doubts of receiving the specific answer ; for the simple reason that God has nowhere specifically promised to bestow it. The enlightened believer urges such petitions, perhaps warmly : but still all are conditioned on an " if it be possible," " if it be consistent with God's secret will." And he does not know whether he shall receive or not, just because that will is still secret. But such prayers, offered with this general trust in God's power, benevolence and better wisdom, and offered in pious motives, are accepted, even though not answered, cf. 2 Cor. xii : 8, with vs.' 9; Matt, xxvi : 39; with Heb. v : 7. God does not give the very thing sought, though innocent in itself; He had never promised it : but He " makes all things work together for good to the petitioner." This should be enough to satisfy every saint.

The other class of objects of prayer is, the benefits accom- panying redemption ; all the gifts which make up, in the elect, growth in grace, perseverance, pardon, sanctification, complete redemption. For these we pray with full assurance of a spe- cific answer, because God has told us, that it is His purpose specifically to bestow them in answer to all true prayer. See

724 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Ps. Ixxxiv : II ; Luke xi : 13: i Thess. iv : 3 ; Luke xii : 32; John XV : 8. So, we have a warrant to pray in faith, for the grace to do the things which God's word makes it our duty to do. In all such cases, our expectation of an answer is entitled to be as definite as was that of Apostles, when inspired with the faith of miracles. God may not give it in the shape or chan- nel we expected ; He .may choose to try our faith by unex- pected delays, but the answer is sure, because definitely prom- ised, in His own time and way. Here we may say, Habak. ii:3,""For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie ; though it tarry, wait for it ; because it will surely come, it will not tarry."

In addition to the promises, our expectation of an answer

_ . ^ ^ , to prayer is strengthened by the following Promises Conhnned. * • "^ -j ^- / \ mn

precious considerations, (a) When we pray

for things agreeable to God's will, we virtually pray for what will promote His glory and good pleasure. We are like the industrious servant petitioning to a wise master, for a new tool or implement in order to work better for him. (b) Such prayers are prompted by the Holy Ghost, and therefore (Rom. viii : 27), are surely destined to be answered, because the good and truth- ful God would not evoke such desires only in order to repulse them, (c) Our union to Christ confirms this ; because we know that the sap of spiritual affections circulates in us from Him our .Root : so that the way we come to have a good desire is, by His having it first. Now, if He desires that thing too, we shall be like to get it. (d) Christ's intercession, so tender and gener- ous, so prevalent, and perpetual, presents the most glorious ground of hope. He rejects no pious applicant. He ever liveth to intercede. The Farther heareth Him always. Hence, Heb. iv : 15, 16.

We are commanded to " pray always," " without ceasing." . 7. Prayer Should be That is, the temper of prayer should be Social and Secret, always prevalent: and ejaculatory prayer Stated and Ejaculatory. gj^^^jj ^^ habitual, and frequent as our spiritual exigencies. But it is also our duty to pray statedly : the morning and evening, at least, being obviously proper stated seasons for secret, and the Lord's day, at least, for social and public prayer. The reason is, that man, a finite creature, controlled so greatly by habit, cannot well perform any contin- uous duty, without a season appropriated to it; and that, a stated season. He needs all the aids of opportunity and leis- ure. Nor is there any incompatibility of such stated seasons, with our dependence on the Holy Ghost for ability to offer acceptable prayer. Some Christians seem to be infected with the Quaker idea, that because all true prayer is prompted by the Spirit, it is best not to attempt the duty at the stated hour, if His afflatus is not felt. The folly of this appears from our Saviour's words : " Behold I stand at the door and knock."

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 725

The Spirit is always waiting to prompt prayer. His command is, to pray always. If, at the appointed hour, an indisposition to pray is experienced, it is our duty to regard this as a marked symptom of spiritual want; and to make it a plea for the petition, " Lord, teach us to pray."

Again: Man must join in acts of social and public worship, because he is a social being ; and hence he derives important aids in the difficult work of keeping alive the spirit of prayer within him. It is also his duty to glorify God before his fellow- creatures, by these public acts of homage, and to seek to benefit his fellows by the example of them. Yet the duty of public worship does not exclude that of secret. See Matt, vi : 6. Every soul is bound to pray statedly in secret, because of the example of Christ and the saints ; because the relation between God and the soul is direct and personal, admitting no daysman but Christ : because secret prayer is the best test and cultiva- tion of the spirit of true devotion : because each soul has special sins, mercies, wants, of which he should speak confi- dentially to his God ; and because there is in secret prayer the most childlike and unrestrained intercourse between God and the soul. . So important are these facts, that we may usually say, that he who has no habit of secret prayer has no spirit of prayer at all.

SYLLABUS

1. What is a sacrament ?

See Conf. of Faith, ch. 27, § i. Turrettin, Loc. xix, Qu. i. Hill, bk. v, ch. 5, §4. Dick. Lect. 86. Ridgley, Qu. 162. Council of Trent. Sess. 7. Can. 1-13, and Catechism. Rom. pt. ii, Qu. 2, 3.

2. Are the sacraments mere symbols or badges, as say the Socinians, or also seals of the Covenant ?

Turrettin, Qu. 5. Hill and Ridgley, as above.

3. What the parts of the sacrament ? And what the quaUties requisite in the material parts ?

Turrettin, Qu. 3. Dick, Lect. 86. Ridgley, Qu. 163. Conf. of Faith, ch. xxvii, § 2.

4. What is the sacramental union between these parts ? Turrettin, Qu. 4. Dick, as above.

5. How many sacraments under the New Testament?

Conf. of Faith, as above, § 4. Turretttn, Qu. 31, Council of Trent, as above, and Rom. Catechism, pt. ii, Qu. 11, 12. Dick, Lect. 87. Burnett, on the Thirty-nme Articles, Art. 25. So. Presbn. Rev., Art. i, Jan. 1876,

6. How many sacraments under the Mosaic dispensation ; and what their relation to those of the New ?

Conf. of Faith, as above. § 5. Rom. Cat., pt. ii, Qu. 9. Dick, Lect. 87. Turrettin, Qu. 9. Calvin Institutes, bk. iv, ch. 14, ^ 23-end.

THHE doctrine of the sacraments is closely dependent on that of the Church ; and is treated by many authorities. Doctrine of Church as Strictly consequent thereon ; as by Turr and Sacraments De- rettin. It may also be remarked, that the P^""^^"^- doctrine of the Church is a head of the theo-

logy of redemption ; and may be treated as such, as well as a source for practical rules of church-order. But as that doctrine is ably treated in another department of this Seminary, I shall assume its main principles, and use them as foundations for the discussion of the sacraments, without intruding into that circle of inquiry.

Let us remember then, that the true Church of Christ is

■r^ c ■.■ rz-u ,. invisible, and consists of the whole body of Dehnition of Church ,1 rr i. 11 11 j t-i ^ ^1

and its Attributes. tne ettectuaily called : Ihat the same name

is given, by accommodation, in the Scrip- tures, to a visible body, consisting of all those throughout the world, who make a credible profession of the true religion, together with their children : That the essential properties of unity, holiness, indefectibility, catholicity, belong to the invisi- ble, and not the visible Church : That God has defined the visi- ble Church catholic, by giving it, in all its parts, a ministry, the Word, the sacraments and other ordinances, and some measure of His sanctifying Spirit: That this visible Church is traced back at least to the family of Abraham, where it was organ- ized by God's own authority on a gospel and ecclesiastical cov- 726

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 727

enant : That this visible Church is substantially the same under both dispensations, retaining under the New, the same membership and nature, though with a suitable change of cir- cumstances, which it had under the Old Dispensation ; and that out of this visible Church catholic there is no ordinary possi- bility of salvation. .In this visible Church, the sacraments are both badges of membership, and sealing ordinances. They also represent, apply, and seal, the chief truths of redemption. Hence, the importance of their discussion. They will be found to bear a close relation to our whole system, both of doctrine and church-order.

When one examines the Scriptures, and sees the brief and

simple statements there given concerning the

I. Bible Ideas of Sa- gacraments, he will be very apt to feel that

crament Simple. '. , •t> ^.^

the place assigned them m many rrotestant,

and all Romish systems of divinity, is inordinately large. This is an evidence of the strong tendency of mankind to formalism. In our treatment of the subject, much of the length assigned it will arise from our attempts to rebut these formal and super- stitious tendencies, and reduce the sacraments to their Scriptu- ral simplicity.

According to the definition of the Confession of Faith, ch. 27, §1,2, there are four things which concur ^Constituted of Four to constitute a sacrament. (a.) A visible ma- material element, (b.) A covenanted grace of graces, aptly symbolized and represented to the senses by the element, (c.) A mutual pledge and seal of this covenant between God and the soul, (d.) And an express divine institu- tion. The usual patristic definition was, " a sacrament is a sen- sible sign of an invisible grace." But this is too indefinite, and leaves out the federal feature. All ceremonies are not sacra- ments because they are of divine appointment ; for they may not have this material element as symbol of a spiritual grace ; nor are all symbols of divine appointment therefore sacraments ; because they may not be seals of a covenant.

One of the most important features is the express divine appointment. Sacraments are acts of wor- nSt'EsstttFaf "^""^"^ ship. All worship not instituted by God is will-worship, and therefore offensive, because He is infinite and inscrutable to finite minds, as well as our ab- solute Sovereign; so that it is presumption in man to devise ways to please Him any farther than the appointment of His word bears us out, and because the devices of depraved and short- sighted man are always liable to be depraved and depraving. These reasons, of course, apply in full force to sacraments of human device. But there is an additional one. A sacrament is God's pledge of some covenanted grace to the true participant. Now, by the same reason that nobody can put my sign and seal to my bond save myself, no other than God can institute a

728 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sacrament. It is the most aggravated form of will-worship. The remarks of Dick and Hill concerning the etymology and

usage of the word, sa.craineiituin, have been Etymology and sufficient; (as meaning first, a suitor's money

placed in pledge ; second, a soldier's oath of enlistment ; third, some holy secret, the usual vulgate transla- tion of iJLoa-'/j()coy.) It has been plausibly suggested, that the latter is the sense primarily attached to it by the Latin Fathers, when they used it in our technical sense ; as liuaTfiptov is the word usually employed therefor by the Greeks. This is reas- onable : yet the other idea of oath of enlistment to Christ was, we know, early attached to it. For in the earliest literature of the martys, e. g., Tertullian, and thenceforward generally, we find the ideas enlarged on, that the Christian is a soldier enlisted and sworn, in the Lord's Supper, to die for Jesus.

Much of the remainder of this Lecture will consist of an

attempt to substantiate the parts of our de- 2. Sacraments are finition of a sacrament. The Socinians (and Seals as well as bigns. t -r-» • 1 1 1 r/ •

as Lutherans and rapists charged, the Zwmg-

lians), being outraged by the unscriptural and absurd doctrine of Rome, concerning the intrinsic efficacy of sacraments, ex operc operato, adopted this view, that a sacrament is but an in- structive and commemorative symbol of certain facts and truths, and a badge of profession. This we hold to be true so far as it goes, but to be insufficient. They are also pledges and seals on God's part of covenanted gospel blessings, as well as pledges of service and fidelity on our part (which is implied in their being badges of profession). And here we oppose the Papists also, because they also repudiate the sphragistic nature of the sacraments, in making them actually confer and work, instead of signing and sealing, the appropriate graces.

The arguments for our view are the following : It is ex- pressly said, Rom. iv : 11, that circumcision, (a.) Because Circum- f ^j^ sacraments of the Old Testament,

sion was a beal. ai 1 • ^ c, 1 r 1

was to Abraham a sign and seal 01 the

righteousness of faith, which he had while yet uncircumcised." It must have been equally a seal to all other genuine believers of Israel ; for the ground of its application to them was no other than their coming under the very covenant then instituted with Abraham, and inheriting the same promises. But baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament, the initial sign of the same covenant ; and baptized believers are children of Abra- ham's promises by faith. Matt, xxviii : 19; Acts ii : 38, 39; Rom, iv : 11, 16, &c. It seems very obvious therefore, that Baptism is as much a seal as circumsion was. So the passover, at its first institution, was a pledge (as well as sign) of a cove- nanted immunity. See Exod. xii ; 13, 23. When we establish a similar identity between the Passover and the Supper, the same argument will appear, that the latter also is a seal.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 729

But second. The pledge contained in the sacraments is (b.) The Sacraments pl^iiily indicated in the outward or ecclesias- Confer Outward Privi- tical privileges, into which they immediately ^^g^- induct the partaker. He vv^ho received the

sign, was thereby at once entitled to the enjoyment of certain privileges, the signs and means of saving graces. How can the idea of pledging be avoided here ? And the sacramental union expressed in the Bible language implies the same. In Gen. xvii : 10, 13, circumsion is called the covenant. In Jno. iii : 5 ; Tit. iii : 5 ; baptism is called regeneration; and in Acts xxii : 16, remission of sins. In Exod. xii, et passivi, the lamb is called the passover. In i Cor. xi : 24, 25, the bread and wine are called the body and blood. Now, this intimate union, implied in such language, must be either opjis operatiim (which we shall disprove), or a sealing pledge. For illustration, by what usage of human language could that symbolical act in a feudal investiture, hand- ing to the tenant a green sod cut from the manor conveyed, be called " Livery of seizin ;" unless it was understood to represent the conveying and guaranteeing of possession in the land ? And third. When we remember that a sacrament symbolizes not any kind of fact or truth, but one peculiar A Federal Sip IS ne- ^^ j^ ; a covenant; we see that in making:

cessanly a Seal. ' 11111 1

a sacrament a symbol and badge, we make it a seal and pledge. For the latter idea is necessarily involved in a federal symbol, which is just the idea of the sacrament. When I shake hands as an indication only of general good will, the act may be merely symbolical ; but when I give my hand on a bargain, the symbol inevitably conveys a sealing mean- ing.

Both the Popish and Protestant Scholastics have defined 3. Matter of the Sa- ^^^ sacraments as consisting in matter, and cramentwhat? Natu- form. This proceeds upon the Peripatetic ral Foundation for it. analysis, adopted by the scholastic divines. They supposed that the most accurate definition of every ob- ject was made by stating, first the matter, 5/"^, constitutive of the object, and then the form, (^yJ^JM which, when superinduced, dis- criminated that object from every other that was constituted of the same uArj. This answers quite correctly, for a concrete ob- ject. Thus : a sword may be defined. It matter is steel. But any steel is not a sword ; there may be steel in a plough-share, or in an ingot, or in a bar. Add the special shape and fashion of the weapon, the form ; and we have the idea of a sword. The student will see, that the attempt to extend this mode of definition to spiritual and ecclesiastical concepts is very ques- tionable : such, however, is the point of view, on which this de- finition turns. But here the student must note that, by form is not meant the shape of a material thing, or the formulary, or mode of observance outward ; but (the idea of a sacrament be- ing complex) that trait which, when superinduced on the trans-

73^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

action, distinguishes it as a sacrament. Both agree that the matter of the sacrament consists of a sensible symbol, and of a federal truth of religion symbolized. The trait of human nature to which the institution of sacraments is accommodated is evidently this : that man being a sensuous being, suggestions prompted by a sensible object, are much more vivid and perma- nent than those prompted by mental conceptions merely, whether the associated suggestion be of thought, or emotion. Society offers many illustrations of this mental law, and of useful social formalities founded on it. What else is the meaning and use of friends, shaking hands? Of civic ceremonials? Of the sym- boHcal acts in forming matrimonial vows ? Of commemorative monuments, painting and statues ? On this principle rest also the attractiveness of pilgrimages, the ties of all local associa- tions, and the sacredness attached to the graves of the dust of those we lov.".

Hence, it is obvious that there will be in every sacrament. Hence, a Sacrament some material element, palpable to the senses, has, first, a Significant and especially to our eye-sight. This element Matenal Part. should also be not merely an arbitrary, but a

natural sign of the grace signified ; that is, it should have some natural analogy to suggest the related grace. By arbitrary agreement, soldiers have bargained that a certain blast of the trumpet shall signify advance, and algebraists, that a certain mark (+) shall represent addition. There is no previous anal- ogy. But in circumcision, the removal of the prepiithim aptly and naturally represents putting away carnality ; and results in a hidden, yet indelible mark, graphically signifying the inward renewal of the heart. In baptism, water, which is the detergent element in nature, as aptly signifies cleansing of guilt and carnal- ity. In the passover, the sprinkled blood represented the atone- ment : and the eating of the sacrificed body of the lamb, faith's receptive act, in embracing Jesus Christ for the life of the soul. In the Lord's Supper, the same symbols almost, are retained ; i. e., eating something that nourishes ; but not in this case animal food, because the typical nature of the passover, contained in " the life which maketh atonement for our sin," had already ter- minated on Christ the antitype. But it must be added, that a mere natural analogy does not constitute a sacrament. The analogy must be selected, and consecrated by the express in- stitution of God.

The Protestant scholastics very properly (if the extremely ^ artificial analysis of the Peripatetics is to be retained at all) declared that the form which constitutes the element and theological truth a sacrament, is the instituted signification. The Papists make the form of sacrament to consist in the words of institution. Those words are indeed, in each case, expressive of the appointed signification ; whence it may be supposed, that the difference of definition is unimpor-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 731

tant. But we shall see that the Papists are thereby smoothing the way for their idea of the sacramental union, involving an efficiency by opus operatum, and the power of the canonical priest to constitute the ceremonial a sacrament or not, at his will.

Our Confession declares, c. 27, § 2, that " there is, in every

sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental

tt"^- ^ax^7u''.%™^"*^' union, between the sign and the thing signi-

UmonWhat? ,-11 •, ^ ^1 ^ ^.u

fied ; whence it comes to pass that the names

and effects of the one are attributed to the other." Instances of this sacramental language have been already given, (p. 302.) Others may be found, where the grace is named by the sign, in Matt, xxvi : 27, 28; i Pet. iii;2i; Rom. vi : 4; Col. ii : 11, 12, &c. This sacramental union is defined by the Confession as " spiritual relation," and by Turrettin, as a " relative and moral union." The latter repudiates the proposition, that it is a "spiritual union;" but he repudiates it in the sense in which it is asserted by Papists, who mean by it a literal connection of the spiritual benefit with the material element, such that it is conferred wherever the element is ex opere operate. Turrettin's "moral relation "means the same with our Confession's " spirit- ual relation." Both, of course, imply that this relation only is real in those cases in which the recipient partakes with proper state of heart. In such cases (only), the elements are the means and channels of gracious benefits, not in virtue of a phys- ical union of the grace to the elements, but of their adaptation and God's appointment and purpose, and the Holy Ghost's influence.

Should any one assert a different union from that of the Confession, he would be refuted by common Pl7skd^"^°" "°* sense, which pronounces the absurdity of the ^^^^^^ ' whole notion of the conveyance of spiritual

benefits by a physical power through a physical union. It is nothing better than an instance of a religious jugglery. He is opposed by the Old Testament, which declares its sacraments to be only signs and seals of grace embraced through faith. He is contradicted by the general tenour of the New Testa- ment, which always conditions our participation of saving bless- ings on our state of heart. And he is inconsistent with himself; for if the tie connecting the grace with the element were a physical tie, the grace ought to go wherever the element goes. It is so with the tie between substance and attributes, in every other case. If it is the nature of fire to burn, then fire surely burns him whom it touches, whether it be conveyed to him by friend or foe, by design or chance, in anger or in friendship. Then, the intention of the priest, and the state of mortal sin in the recipient ought to make no difference whatever as to the gracious efficacy. In placing these limitations, the Papist has really given up his position ; he has virtually admitted that the

732 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sacramental union is only a relation of instituted moral influ- ence. But if it is such, then its efficacy must be tested just like other moral influence exerted by the Holy Ghost. Are any of them exerted, can they be exerted, any otherwise than through the intelligent embracing and acting upon the truth by the soul of the subject? The same topic will be more fully dis- cussed when we consider the claim of opus opcraium.

All Protestants are agreed that among the religious rites

, T, . ^ TVT instituted by God for the New Testament 5. But two New ^1 , , , 1 . 1 1

Testament Sacraments. Churches, there are but two, which meet the Rome has Seven. definition of a sacrament : Baptism and the

Lord's supper. As they obviously present all the requisites, and as there is no dispute concerning their claim, we shall not argue it, but proceed to consider the pretensions of the five other so-called sacraments of the Romish Church : confirmation, pen- ance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. To prove that the sacraments are seven, the Roman Catechism seems to rely chiefly on this argument : As there are seven things in physical life which are essential to the propagation and well-being of man and of society, that men be born, grow, be nourished, be healed when sick, be strengthened when weak, have rulers to govern them, and rear children lawfully ; so in the analagous life of the Spirit, there are seven essential wants, to each of which a sacrament answers. In baptism the soul is born unto Christ, by confirmation we grow, in the eucharist we are fed with heavenly nourishment, in penance the soul is medicined for the returns of the diseases of sin, in extreme unction it is strength- ened for its contest with the last enemy, in orders the spiritual magistracy is instituted, and in matrimony the production of legitimate offspring is secured. The answer to all this trifling is obvious, that by the same argument it would be as easy to make a dozen sacraments as seven : one to answer to man's home and shelter, one to his raiment to cover him, one to his fire to warm him, &c., &c., for these also are necessaries. But to proceed to details.

I. Confirmation is not a sacrament of the New Testament,

because it utterly lacks the divine institu- SaCT°ment!"^*'°" "° ^^o"' The imposition of hands practiced in

Acts viii : 17, and xix:6, and mentioned in Heb. vi:2, was a rite intended to confer the miraculous charisms of the Holy Ghost, and therefore peculiar to the apos- tolic age, and purely temporary. The evidences of this fact are presented in the exposition of Acts.* Let Rome or Can- terbury so confer the Holy Ghost, by their imposition of hands, that they shall make men prophesy and speak with tongues (Acts xix : 6), and we will believe. Again : It is the sheerest blunder to pretend to find this rite of confirmation in any of those pass-

* See a crucial investigation of this point in my essay, "Prelacy ■Southern Presbyterian Review. Januaiy 1876.

a Blunder." —

or LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 733

ages where apostles are said to "confirm" (Acts xiv : 22, azr^(ii^o)v) the churches, or the souls of the brethren. The con- text, dispassionately viewed, will show that this was merely the instructions and encouragements addressed to them by the apostles' prayers and preachings. For these reasons, and because the Scriptures direct us to expect in baptism and the Lord's Supper all the increments of grace which Christians receive through any sacramental channel, we do not hold mod- ern confirmation to be a scriptural rite at all. But if it were, it could not be a sacrament, for tw^o fatal reasons : that it has no material element (for the oil or chrism is of purely human addi- tion, without one syllable of scriptural authority) ; and it has no promise of grace attached to it by any divine institution. It seals no pledge God has given.

2. Papists profess to find the matter of the sacrament of

penance in the penitent's three exercises.

Penance No Sacra- r , •.■ r • j ^- r . ■ 1

j^gnt. °* contrition, confession and satisiaction ; and

its form in the priest's absolution. Now, in the case of sins which scandalize the Church openly, a confes- sion to man is required by the New Testament, and a profes- sion of contrition. And when such profession is credible, it is proper for the minister to pronounce the acquittal of the offend- ing brother from Church censure. And this is the only case in which anything like confession and absolution is enjoined as an ecclesiastical rite in the New Testament. The only plausi- ble case cited .by Rome, that of Jas. v : 16, is non-ecclesiasti- cal, because it is mutual confession, and its object is mutual prayers for each other's forgiveness. That would be a queer sacrament in which recipient should turn the tables on admin- istrator, giving him the elements and conferring the grace ! Having limited scriptural confession and absolution to the single case defined above, we find overwhelming reasons why, in that case, they cannot compose a sacrament. There is no element to symbolize the grace promised ; for by what title can a set of feelings and acts in the penitent be called a material element ? If this be waived, there is no analogy between this pretended element, and a symbolized grace ; for contrition and confession do not represent, they are themselves graces, if gen- uine. There is no divine warrant, in words of institution, authorizing the minister to announce a divine grace ; for all he is authorized to announce is acquittal from Church discipline. " Who can forgive sins but God only ?" And last : It is the nature of a sacrament to be partaken by all alike who are within the covenant. But scriptural penance is appropriate only to the exceptional cases of those communicants who have scandalized their profession. The additions which the Papists have made, of auricular confession and satisfaction, greatly aggravate the objections.

3. The formulary for extreme unction may be found de-

734 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

scribed in Turrettin and others. The only- Extreme Unction i r c • ^ -i. j • -i. ^ No Sacrament. places ol bcnpture Cited m its support are

Mark vi : 13, and Jas. v : 14. These cases so obviously fail to bear out the Popish sacrament that many of their own writers confess it. The .objects were different; the apostles annointed to heal the bodies ; the priests do it to pre- pare them for dying. The apostles anointed all sick persons who called on them, baptized, unbaptized, those in mortal sin ; sacraments are properly only for Church members. The effect in the apostles' case was miraculous : can Rome claim this ? And there can be no sacrament, because the priest has no divine institution and promise on which to proceed.

4. Orders cannot be a sacrament, although when stripped

^ of its superstitious additions, a New Testa- Orders No Sacra- i. -i. r? -i. 1 1 ... t^i •

j^gjjt. ment rite, rorithas no element, i he im-

position of hands with prayer (chrism, &c., is all extra-scriptural) is but an action, not an element. It has no saving grace connected with it, by any promise or word of insti- tution. As has been shown by my colleague, in his course, ordination confers no grace, but only recognizes its possession. According to Rome, the action which she preposterously ele- vates into a matter, is not uniform ; but as there are seven orders of clergy, there are several different ceremonials enjoined in the different cases. And last : only one Christian out of a number is ordained to any office : whereas a sacrament is for all equally, who are in the covenant.

5. For the sacramental character of matrimony, the only showing of scriptural defence is the vulgate translation of Eph. v : 32 : "Hoc est sacramentwn magnum^ Surely a mistransla- tion of a bad version is a bad foundation on which to build a Bible-claim ! And then, as has been well remarked, the great imarf^navj on which Paul remarks, is not the marriage relation at all, but the mystical union of Christ to His people. In matri- mony there is no sacramental element at all, no divine warrant for sacramental institution, no grace of redemption signed and sealed to the recipients. And to crown the absurdity, the rite is not limited to God's people, but is equally valid among Pagans ! Indeed, marriage is a civil contract, and not an eccles- iastical one. Yet Rome has found it to her interest to lay her hand on the rite, and thus to elevate the question of divorce into an ecclesiastical one, and a causa major.

As to the number of sacraments under the Old Testament

6. Sacraments of Old dispensation Calvinistic divines arc not

Testament Two. Sac- agreed Some seem inclined to regard any

and Wh"'^'"'''''"''^"'''' °^ every symbolical rite there found as a sacrament. Others, far more correctly, as I conceive, limit them to two : circumcision and the passover. The claim of these two to be sacraments need hardl}^ be much argued, inasmuch as it is not disputed. They are symbols

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 735

instituted by God ; they have each their elements, bearing a significant relation to the grace represented : the thing repre- sented was in each case federal, so that they not only signified, but sealed or pledged the benefits of a covenant.

But the various typical sacrifices of the Hebrews cannot be properly regarded as sacraments, for the very reason that they were mere types. (The passover also was a type, in that it was a sacrifice proper, but it was also more than a type, a commemorative and sealing ordinance). For a type points for- ward to an antitype to come. A sacrament points back to a covenant already concluded. The type does not actually con- fer the good symbolized, but holds the soul in suspense, waiting for it. The sacrament seals a present possession to the worthy receiver. This was as true of the two Old Testament sacra- ments as of the New. See Rom. iv : ii ; Exod. xii : 13. To the obedient and observant Hebrew, the passover was, on the night of its institution, the sign and seal of the remission of deathj bodily and spiritual death, the proper penalty of sin, visited that night on a part of the Egyptians ; and doubtless, in all subsequent ages, the truly believing Hebrew found it the consoling pledge of a present and actual (not typical) remission and spiritual life, through the merit of the " Lamb of God." Again, a sacrament is a holy ordinance, to be observed alike by all who are within the covenant. But many of the sacrifices were adapted only to exceptional cases : as the Nazarites, the trespass offering, the sacrifice for the purification of women, &c. The question whether the sacraments of the Old and New Sacraments of Both Testaments are the same substantially in Testaments Same in their signification and efficacy will be found Signification. • ^^ ^-^^ sequel one of prime importance. The

grounds on which we assert their substantial identity are these, (a.) Presumptively : The covenant of grace is the same under the two testaments, offering the same blessing, redemp- tion ; through the same agencies, justification and sanctifica- tion through the work of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Hence, it is natural to suppose that sacraments, especially when sealing the same covenant graces, should operate in substantially the same way. (b.) The identity of the covenant, and of the means of sealing it, is strongly implied by Paul, i Cor. x : I-4, when he says there was a sense in which the Hebrew Church possessed baptism and the Lord's supper. Turrettin very strangely argues from this, and deals with objections, as though he understood the Apostle to teach that the Hebrews of the Exodus had literally and formally a real sacrament of baptism, and the supper, in the passage of the Red Sea, and the eating and drinking of the Manna and water of Massah. This seems to me to obscure the argument; and it would certainly have this effect : that we must teach thet Israel had four sacraments instead of two. The scope of the Apostle is, to show that par-

736 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ticipation in sealing ordinances and ecclesiastical privileges does not ensure salvation. For Israel all shared these wond- rous sealings to God, yet many of them perished. And to strengthen the analogy he compares them to the New Testa- ment sacraments. Now, if Israel's consecration to God in this Exodus was virtually a baptizing and a Eucharist, we infer that the spirit of the Israelitish ordinances was not essentially differ- ent from that of the New Testament. The scope of the Apos- tle necessitates this view. His design was, to stimulate to watch- fulness, by showing that sacraments alone do not guarantee our salvation. This premise he proves, from the case of the Israelites who, though enjoying their sacraments, perished by unbelief If the New Testament sacraments differed from the Old in pos- sessing opus operatinn power, as Rome claims they do, then the logic of the Apostle would be shameful sophism, (c.) The supper is called by the name of the passover. i Cor. v : 7, 8, And the baptism is declared to be. Col. ii : 11, 12, the New Testament circumcision, (d.) The supper came in the 'room of the passover, as is manifest from the circumstances of its institution, and the baptism came in the room of circumcision ; compare Gen. xvii : 11, with Matt, xxviii : 19. See Acts ii: 38, 39. And, last, circumcision and baptism signify and seal the same graces. This will be manifest from a comparison of Gen. xvii: 13, 14, with Acts ii : 41; Deut. x: 16, or xxx : 6, with Jno. iii : 5, or with Titus iii : 5, and Eph. v; 26; Acts vii : 8. with Rom. vi : 3, 4 ; Rom. iv: 11, with Acts ii : 38, and xxii : 16. We here learn that each sacrament signified entrance into the visible Church, remission of sin, regeneration, and the engagement to be the Lord's. So the passover and the supper signify substantially the same. In our passover, the Lamb of God is represented as slain, the blood as sprinkled, our souls feed upon Him by faith, and the consequence is that God's wrath passeth over us, and our souls live.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Heb. vi:2
  2. Deut. x: 16
  3. Rom. iv: 11

SYLLABUS

7. Is tlie efficacy of the Sacraments dependent on the officiator's intention ? Turrettin, Loc. xix, Qu. 7. Dick, Lect. 86, 87. Conf. of Faith, ch. 27. Ridgley, Qu 161. Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Cannon 11.

8. Is that efficiency produced ex opere operato ; qr does it depend on the recipi- ent's exercise of the proper frames, inwrouglit by the Holy Ghost through the Word of God ?

See on Qu. 8, Cunningham's Hist. Theol. ch. 22, \ i, 2. Turrettm, Qu. 8. Calv.. Inst. bk. iv, ch. 14, Dick, Lect. 86. Ridgley, Qu. 161. Rom. Cat. pt. ii, Qu. 18. Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Canon, 410 8 inclusive.

9. Is participation in the Sacraments necessary to salvation ? Turrettin, Ques. 2 and 13. Council of Trent, as above.

10. By whom should the Sacraments be adminstered ?

Turrettin, Qu. 14. Rice and Campbell, Debate, Prop. iv. Calv. Inst. bk. iv, ch. 15, \ 20-end.

11. Do the rites of Baptism, Confirmation, and orders confer an indelible spiritual character ?

Turrettin, Qu. 10. Dick, as above. Dr. Geo. Campbell, Lect. xi, on Eccles, Hist. (p. 183, &c.) Rom. Cat. pt. ii, Qu, 19. Council of Trent, Sess. vii. Canon 9.

' I *HE Council of Trent asserts (Ses. 7 canon 11), that the intention of doing at least what the Church proposes to do, is necessary in the administrator, to make trine o?I™tentiSi.° '^ ' ^^^^ sacraments valid. Some popish divines are so accommodating as to teach, that if this intention is habitual or virtual, though not present, because of inattention, in the mind of the administrator at the moment of pronouncing the words of institution, it is still valid ; and some even say, that though the officiating person have heretical notions of the efficacy of the Sacrament, e. g., the Presby- terian notion, and honestly intends a Sacrament, as he under- stands it, it is valid. Now, there is obviously a sense, in which the validity of sacramental acts, depends on the intention of the parties. If, for instance, a frivolous or profane clergyman should, in a moment of levity, use the proper elements, and pro- nounce the proper words of institution, for purposes of mockery or sinful sport, it would certainly not be a sacrament. But this is a lack of intention, of a far different kind from the popish. There would be neither the proper place, time, nor circum- stances of a divine rite. The profanity of purpose would be manifest and overt : and all parties would be guilty of it. The participation on both sides, would be a high act of profanity. But where the proper places, times and attendant circumstances exist, so far as the honest worshipper can judge ; and all the divine institution essential to the validity of the right is regu- larly performed with an appearance of religious sincerity and solemnity, there we deny that the sincere participant can be *47 737

. 73^ SYLLABUS AND NOTES

deprived of the sacramental benefit, by the clergyman's secret

la-'k of intention. And this : because

(a.) It is the opinion of all the Protestant divines, even

^ , including Calvin (Inst. Bk. iv: ch. 14), that

Refutation. .1 • re ^ r .1 '\

the gracious erncacy 01 the sacraments is generally like that of the word. The sacraments are but an acted word, and a promise in symbol. They effect their grac- ious result through the Holy Ghost cultivating intelligent faith, etc. Now, the efficacy of the word is not dependent on the motives of him who conveys it. God sometimes saves a soul by a message delivered through a wicked man. Why may not it be thus with a sacrament ?

(b.) If the clergyman lack the right intention, that is simply his personal sin. It is preposterous to represent God as suspending the fate of a soul, or its edification, absolutely upon the good conduct of another fellow-sinner, whose secret fault that soul can neither prevent, nor even detect till too late. This is not Scripture. Prov. ix : 12 ; Rom. xiv : 4. This objection to Rome's doctrine is peculiarly forcible against her, because she represents the valid enjoyment of sacraments, as essential to salvation : and because she herself teaches that the validity of the sacraments is not dependent on the personal character of the clergyman, not even though he be in mortal sin. Why should this one sin, which is precisely a personal sin of the offici- ator, no more, no less, be an exception ?

(c.) The possible consequences of the doctrine, as pointed out by Turrettin, Dick, etc., are such as amount to a rediectio ad absnrdum. If it were true, it would bring in question the validity of any sacrament, of every priest's baptism and ordina- tion, the validity of the Apostolic Succession at every link, and of every mass : so that the worshipper would never know, while worshipping the wafer, whether he were guilty of idolatry or not, even on Popish principles. According to the Canon Law, all orders conferred on unbaptized persons are null. Hence, if there is any uncertainty that the priest baptizing the Pope had the intention, there is the same uncertainty whether every grade of ordination he received, from the deaconship up to the papal, is not void ; and every clerical act he ever performed therefore invalid. Papists endeavour to evade this terrible consequence by saying that we have the moral evidence of human testimony, that the priests giving us the sacraments had the intention ; and this is all the Protestant can have of his own baptism in infancy, because he was too young to know; and had to take the fact on the assertion of his parents or others. I repl)^ : there are two vital differences : The Protestant does not believe water bap- tism essential to his redemption; an unconscious mistake in the fact would not be fatal. Water baptism is an overt act, cognizable by the senses, and a proper subject of authentic and complete testimony, by concurrent witnesses; but intention is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 739

a secret act of soul, not cognizable by any other than the pjiest, and impossible to be verified by any concurrent testimony.

Last : This doctrine is totally devoid of Bible support. But these tremendous difficulties have not Motive for the Dogma, prevented Rome from asserting the doctrine. Her purpose is to hold the laity in the most absolute and terrible dependence on the priesthood. She tells them that without valid sacraments it is impossible to be saved; and that even where they have the canonical form of a sacra- ment, they may utterly fail of getting the sacrament itself, through the priest's secret will ; and may never find it out till they wake in hell, and find themselves damned for the want of it. What power could be more portentous ?

In the scholastic jargon of Rome, means of grace natu- rally divide themselves into two classes — Jyfx'S^rtS^eral: ^hose which do good ex opevc operato, 2.nd those which only do good ex opere operantis. The former do good by the simple performance of the proper ceremonial, without any act or movement of soul in the recipi- ents, accommodating themselves intelligently to the grace sig- nified. The latter only do good when the recipient exercises the appropriate acts of soul ; and the good done is depen- dent on those exercises, as well as on the outward means. Of the latter kind of means is preaching, &c.; but Rome holds that the sacraments all belong to the former. Her meaning, then, is that the mere administration of the sacrament does the appointed good to the recipient, provided he is not in a state of mortal sin, whether he exercises suitable frames or not. So Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Canon, 6-8. But Romish Theologi- ans are far from being of one mind, as to the nature of this immediate and absolute efficacy.

Their views may be grouped with tolerable accuracy under p, r- two classes. One class, embracing the Jesuit

and more Popish Papists, regard the opus operatum efficacy as a proper and literal effect of the sacra- mental element and words of institution, by their own immedi- ate causation. They do not, and cannot explain the nature of this causation, unless it be literally physical ; and then it is absurd. The other class, including Jansenists, and the more spiritual, regard the sacramental efficacy as spiritual — i. e., as the almighty redeeming influence of Christ and the Holy Ghost, purchased for sinners by Christ; which .spiritual influence they suppose God has been pleased in His mercy to tie by a con- stant purpose, and gracious promise, to the sacraments of the Church canonically administered, by a tie gracious and posi- tive, yet absolute and unconditioned, so that the sacramental efficacy goes to every human being to whom the elements go with the proper word of institution, whether the recipient exer- cise faith or not. That is, God has been pleased, in His sove-

740 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

reign, mercy to the Church, to make her sacraments the essen- tial and unfaiHng channels of His spiritual grace. The opinion of the Prelatic Fathers seems to have been intermediate — that no one got saving grace except through the sacramental chan- nel, (excepting the doubtful case of the uncovenanted mercies) but that in order to get grace through that channel, faith and repentance were also necessary. (See Augustine, in Calvin's 7ibi S7ipra). And such is probably the real opinion of High Church Episcopalians, and of Campbellites, as to the grace of remission.

Now, Protestants believe that the sacraments, under proper Protestant View circumstances, are not a hollow shell, devoid

of gracious efficacy. Nor is their use that of a mere badge. But they are not the channels or vehicles for acquiring the saving grace first ; inasmuch as the possession of those graces is a necessary prerequisite to proper participation in adults. The efficacy of the sacrament, therefore, is in no case more than to strengthen and nourish saving graces. And that efficacy they carry only as moral means of spiritual influ- ences ; so that the whole benefit depends on an intelligent, believing and penitent reception. And every believer has the graces of redemption in such degree as to save his soul, if a a true believer, whether he has any sacraments or not. See Confession of Faith, ch. xxvii : § 3. In this sense we deny the opits operat.

(a) Because that doctrine is contradicted by the analogy Proved. By Analo- of the mode in which the Word operates.

go us Operation of As we have Stated, Protestant divines admit no generic difference between the mode in which the Holy Ghost works in the Word, and in the sacra- ments. The form of a sacrament is the instituted signifi- cance of it. But that significance is only learned in the Scrip- tures, and the word of institution is to be found, as well as its explanation, in the same place. The sacrament, without the intelligent signification, is dumb : it is naught. Scripture alone gives it its significance. Sacraments are but the word symbol- ized ; the covenant before expressed in promissory language, now expressed in sphragistic symbols. But now, what is more clear, than that the word depends for its efficacy, on the believ- ing and active reception of the sinner's soul ? See 2 Cor. iii : 6 ; Heb. iv : 2, et passim. The same thing is true of the sacra- ments.

(b) The sacraments are defined in the Scriptures as signs and 1, •■ seals, Rom. iv : ii ; Gen. xvii : 10. Now to

Character. "^^^'^ "^ signify and to promise a thing is different from doing it. Where the effect is present, the sign and pledge thereof is superseded. When the money is paid, the bond that engaged for its payment is done with. To make the sacraments effect redemption ex opcre operato, there*

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 74I

fore destroys their sacramental nature. But more : They are seals of a covenant. That Covenant, as far as man is a party (and in the sacrament, the recipient is one party), was sus- pended on an instrumental condition, a penitent and obedient faith. How can the seal have a more immediate and absolute efficiency than the covenant of which it is a seal. That coven- ant gives it all its force. It is to evade this fatal argument, that Bellarmine labours, with his and our enemies, the Socinians, to prove that sacraments are not seals.

(c) The sacraments cannot confer redeeming grace ex

opere opetato, because, in every adult, proper posed ^^^^ resup- pa.rticipation presupposes saving grace in

exercise. See Rom. iv : ii, last clause; Acts viii ; 35, 36, 37 ; ix : 1 1 with 18 ; x : 34 with 47 ; Mark xvi : 16; I Peter iii : 21 ; Heb. xi : 6 ; i Cor. xi : 28, 29 ; v : 7, 8. Hence :

(d) Several in Scripture were saved without any sacra- By Instances of Sal- mentg, as the thief on the cross. Cornelius,

vation Without Sacra- we have seen, and Abraham, were already in ™^'^'^' a state of redemption, before their participa-

tion in the sacraments. Now, inasmuch as we have proved that a true believer once in a state of grace can never fall totally away, we may say that Abraham and Cornelius were already redeemed. Jno. iii : 36 ; v : 24. And the overwhelm- ing proof that the sacraments have no intrinsic efficacy, is in this glaring fact, that multitudes partake them, with what Rome calls canonical regularity, who never exhibit in their lives or death, one mark of Christian character. Nor will it avail for Rome to say, that they afterward lost the grace by committing mortal sin : for the Scriptures say that the redeemed soul can- not fall away into mortal sin : and multitudes exhibit their total depravity, not after a subsequent backsliding, but from the hour they leave the sacramental altar, by an unbroken life of sin.

(e) The claim of uniform and absolute efficiency, in its D Ab urdi grosscr form, is absolute absurdity. How

can physical, material elements, with a word of institution pronounced over them (which of itself can go no farther into the hearer, than the tympanum of his ear), effect a moral and spiritual change? It is vile jugglery: degrading to Christianity, and reducing the holy sacraments to a pagan incan- tation. But the Jesuit pleads, that we see ten thousand cases, where the external physical world produces mental and moral effects, through sensation. We reply that this is not true in the sense necessary to suppori: their doctrine. Sensation is not the efficient, but only the occasional cause of moral feeling, volition, &c. The efficient cause is in the mind's own dispo- sitions and free agency. The confusion of thought in this plea is the same with that made by the sensualistic psychologist, when he mistakes inducement for motive.

742 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

But the sophism points us to the cause of a great fact in Church History. That fact is, that somehow, the opus operatmn doctrine of the sacraments tends to accompany Pelagian views of human nature and grace. One has only to recall the semi- Pelagian tendencies of the Greek Church, of the Latin Church, notwithstanding its strong Augustinian impulse in its earlier ages, of the English and American Ritualists, and last, of the community founded by Alex. Campbell. These facts are too uniform for chance : they betray a causation. From the point of view just gained, we can easily detect it. The sacraments are external ordinances in this : that they present truth (in sym- bol) objectively. Hence it is impossible for a rational man to persuade himself that means, which common sense can only apprehend as didactic, if not fetiches, can of themselves cause spiritual acts of soul, (graces) on any other view of the will, than that of the Pelagian. If volitions and emotions are decis- ively regulated by dispositions, then the a priori revolution of the disposition, by the Holy Spirit, must be in order to the wholesome influence of any objective. But that is the Protest- ant view of a sacrament. If the sacrament occasions spiritual states and acts ex opere operato, it can only be on condition of the will's self-determination. Thus, every consistent Ritual- ist becomes a Pelagian. What is regeneration by moral sua- sion, except an opus operatmn effect of the Word ?

But if the other view of the opus operatuvi be urged : that the efficiency is spiritual, and results, not from the direct causation of the rite itself, but from the power of God graciously and sovereignly connected therewith ; we demand the revealed warrant. Where is the promise to the Church from God, that this connection shall be absolute ? The Scriptures are silent, when properly interpreted. The burden of proof must rest on the assertors. They have no text which meets the demand. Indeed, in many places the Scriptures explicitly declare the contrary. See, for example, Deut. x : i6 ; Jer. iv : 4 ; Luke xiii : 26, 27 ; I Cor. xi : 29 ; Rom. ii : 25th to end. It may be urged that some of these places, and especially the last, speak of the sacraments of the old dispensation. It is in the vain hope of breaking the force of these unanswerable texts, that Rome asserts an essential difference between the sacraments of the old and the new dispensation, saying that the former only sym- bolize, while the latter work, saving graces. The student can now see the polemic interest Rome has in widening the differ- ences between the Old Testament- and the New, as much as possible, and in recognizing the least of gospel features in the Old. But I have proved that the same gospel is in both Testa- ments, and that there is no generic difference in the way the sacraments of the two exhibit grace. Here, in part, is the im- portance of that argument. Especially do I take my stand on I Cor. X : i-io, and prove thence that the sacraments of the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLGGY. 743

New Testament were viewed by the Apostle, as no more effec- tive, ex opere operato, than those of the Old, Thus, all the demonstrations of the inefificacy of circumcision without repent- ance and faith, apply against the Ritualist and Papist.

The whole strain of Scripture must strike every candid mind, as opposed to this theory of sacra-

\Miole Tenour of ^^gntal grace. God portrays his gospel as a Promises against it. . . f" ,. . . ^ •' & ^

spiritual religion, the contrast of a formalistic

one. He everywhere heaps scorn on mere formalism. As the man thinketh in his heart, so is he. To teach that a man becomes a Christian by the force of any ceremony, is totally opposite to all this. The argument may be placed in an exceedingly definite light thus. Let them deny the sphragistic nature of the sacraments as they may, it cannot be concealed. Least of all, can the emblematic relation between gospel promises and sacraments be denied. Now the emblem always means just what it is appointed didactically to emblematize : no more. The seal binds only to what is written above in the bond to which it is appended. In every contest as to the intent of a seal, this solution is so obvious, that any other is ridicu- lous : " Look into the bond, and see what is written above." The Bible is the bond. When we read there, we universally find re- demption promised to faith and repentance. The seal appended beneath cannot contradict the body of the instrument.

Alien as the doctrine we refute is, from the whole letter and

^ ^ . spirit of Scripture ; it has an element of Motive of Doctrine. 1 •, 1 • 1 -n 1

popularity, which will always secure nume- rous votaries, until grace undeceives them. It chimes in with the superstition natural to a soul dead in sin. It is delightful to the soul which hates true repentance, and loves its spiritual laziness, and abhors thorough-going heart religion, and yet dreads hell, to be taught that it can be equipped for heaven, without these arduous means, by an easy piece of ecclesiastical legerdemain.

(f ) But Papists and Prelatists quote a class of passages, ., , which they claim to give an immediate

Scriptures Reconciled. rc.^- ». ^.-u v -^ ir c t

^ erhciency to the rite itself. See Jno. 111 :

5 ; Acts ii : 38 ; xxii : 16 ; Eph. v : 26 ; i Cor. x : 17 ; Rom. vi : 3 ; Luke xxii : 19, 20, &c. Protestants explain these pas- sages in consistency with their views, by saying that they are all expressions based on the sacramental union, and to be ex- plained in consistency with it : e. g., in Jno. iii : 5, the birth of the water means the birth by that which the water represents, the Holy Ghost. Nicodemus' great error was, that he had put too much dependence on water. He had relied too much on his " divers baptisms" and hand-washings. Christ says to him, that he must have a cleansing more efficacious than that by water, the cleansing of the Spirit. That He does not mean to assert for water baptism an equal effect and necessity with re-

744 SYLLABUS AND NOTES.

generation, is plain from the fact that in ah the subsequent verses, he omits the water wholly. The propriety of this inter- pretation of all the similar places is defended, first by the analo- gous case of the hypostatic union in Christ's person, where God is in one place spoken of as having blood, and the Prince of Life as dying. Papists agree with us, that in virtue of the union of the two natures in one person, the person, even when denominated by the one nature, is represented as doing what, in strictness of speech, the other alone could do. So, in the sacraments, there are suggested two things — the rite, and the grace signified by the rite. How natural, then, that a He- brew should atrribute to the rite, by figure, what the answering grace really effects ? In the second place, this probability is greatly strengthened by noticing the way, natural to Hebrew mind, of speaking concerning all other symbols, as types, &c. The symbol is almost uniformly said to be the thing symbol- ized ; when the meaning is, that it represents it. Third : our interpretation of these passages is adopted by Scripture itself, in one of the very strongest instances, thus authorizing our view of the exegesis of the whole class. See i Pet. iii ; 21. Here, first baptism is said to save us, as the ark saved Noah. What expression could be stronger? But yet the Apostle explains himself by saying, it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh which effects it, but the answer [i-Bp(OTr^f/.a) of a good conscience towards God. These words ascribe the effi- cacy of the sacrament to the honesty of the participant's con- fession ; and this whether with Turrettin and Winer we translate " request to God," or with Neander and Robinson, " Sponsio." Fourth. If men will persist in making the above Scriptures teach the o/>t/s operatuDi, the only result will be that the Scrip- ture will be made to contradict itself; for it is impossible to explain away all the proof-texts we have arrayed.

This difference between us and Rome is fundamental ; because she teaches men to depend essentially on the wrong trust for salvation. The result must be ruin of souls.

The question of the necessity of the sacraments in order to salvation, is nearly connected with the pre-

stHSNerslV""^'' ^^°"^ °"^- This is indicated by the fact that the same persons usually hold their essential necessity, and their efficacy ex opere operato. And this consistently ; for if the sacraments have that marvellous virtue, it can hardly be supposed that man can safely lack them. Now, there is a sense in which the neglect of the sacra- ments would destroy the soul. To observe them is God's com- mand. He who willingly disobeys this command, and perse- veres, will thereby destroy his soul, just for the same reason that any wilful disobedience will. But then, it is not the lack of the sacraments, but the impenitent state of the soul, which is the true cause of ruin. Turrettin ; " Eoruvi non privatio, sed con-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 745

tentptus damitat." The command to observe them is not of perpetual and original, but only of positive institution ; and owes its force over our consciences to the mere precept of God. Hence they should be regarded from the same general point of view with other positive rites. We sustain this :

(a) By reference to the free and spiritual character of the

gospel plan as indicated throughout Scrip-

rgumen s. ture. God has not tied His grace to forms,

places, or sacerdotal orders. All men alike have access to His

redeeming mercy, provided their hearts desire it, and under all

outward circumstances. Jno. iv : 21, 23 ; Luke xviii : 14, &c.

(b). We infer the same thing from the numerous and ex- ceedingly explicit passages which promise the immediate bestowal- of redeeming grace, and mention no other term than believing. Some of them do it in terms which hardly admit of evasion. E. g., Jno. v : 24 ; vi : 29. Does not this seem to say that believing alone puts the soul in possession of redemption ? True the Papist may say that one passage of Scripture should be completed by another; and that in other places (e. g., Jno. iii : 5 ; Mark xvi : 16) the observance of the sacrament is coupled with the believing grace, as a term of salvation. But when those passages are well understood, it is seen that the import- ance of the outward sacrament depends wholly on the sacra- mental union. We repeat, that the places in which faith alone is mentioned as the instrumental condition, are so numerous, so explicit, and some of them professed answers to questions so distinct as (Acts xvi : 31), that it is simply incredible the Holy Ghost would have so omitted the mention of the sacraments if they were essential.

(c). But their nature shows they are not. They are sensi- ble signs of an inward grace. The reception of them there- fore implies the possession of grace ; a sufficient proof it does not originate it.

(d). This leads us to add, that many have actually been saved without any sacraments. Abraham and Cornelius were both in a state of grace before they partook of any sacrament. The penitent thief went to paradise without ever partaking. Circumcision could not be administered till the eighth day of the Hebrew infant's life : and doubtless many died uncircum- cised in the first week of their life. Were these all lost ? This Popish doctrine gives a frightful view of the condition of the infants of Pagans : that forsooth, because they are debarred from the sacrament of baptism, among the millions who die without actual transgression, there is not one elect infant ! Are all these lost ?

Last, the Scriptures everywhere hold out the truth, that the Word is the great means of redemption; and it is plainly indicated that it is the only essential means. See Rom. x : 14: 2 Tim. iii : 15.

746 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

The traditions and usages of the Church as to lay admin- 10. Sacraments istration of sacraments have been in the Should be Adminis- main very uniform. It has always been cen- tered Only by Minis- demned. The inordinate importance attached to baptism did indeed lead the Romish Church, (and after her, the English), to decide that the baptism of a layman, and even of a woman, was valid, though irregular, if the child was in extremis, and no priest at hand. Even this, most Presbyterians would condemn as utterly invalid. The German antiquaries (e. g., Mosheim) sometimes assert that in the primitive Church any person who made a convert felt au- thorized to baptize him. This appears to me very doubtful. Ignatius, for instance, who is, if genuine, one of the earliest Apostolic Fathers, says that the Eucharist which the Bishop celebrates should alone be considered a valid one ; and that no one should presume to baptize, except the Bishop, or one com- missioned by him. This is certainly the language of uniform antiquity, expressed in Councils and Fathers. Nor is it merely the result of clerical ambition and exclusiveness. Since the sac- raments are a solemn and formal representation of Gospel truth by symbols, a sort of pantomimic Word, it seems most reason- able that the exhibition of them should be reserved to the same class to whom is committed the authoritative preaching of the Word. And it may be urged, with yet more force, that since the presbyters, and especially the pastor of the Church, are the guardians of the sealing ordinances, responsible for their de- fence against abuse and profanation, it is reasonable, yea, neces- sary, that they should have the control of their administration. This consideration seems to me to have the force of a just and necessary inference. Again the great commission (Matt, xxviii ; 19; Mark xvi : 15) seems evidently to give the duties of preach- ing and baptizing to the same persons. The persons primarily addressed were the apostles ; but the apostles as representative of the whole Church. To deny this would be to deny to all but apostles authority to preach, and a share in the gracious promise of Christ's presence which accompanies the commission ; and this again would compel us to admit that the right to preachy and the promise of Christ's blessing, have been lost to the whole Church for nearly 1800 years, or else to accept the Epis- copal conclusion that the apostolic office still continues. Hence, the argument from the commission gives only probable proof. This, however, is strengthened by the fact that there is no in- stance in Scripture of any sacraments administered by any ex- cept men who were ministers of the gospel, either by charism, or by ordination. Perhaps the most practical argument against lay administration of sacraments is, from the intolerable disor- ders and divisions, which have always arisen, and must ever arise, from such a usage. The sacraments have this use among others, to be badges and pledges of Church membership. The

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. y^J

control of them cannot therefore be given to others than the appointed rulers of the Church : to do so is utter disorganiza- tion.

The Council of Trent teaches that the three sacraments

of baptism, confirmation and orders, can II. Indelible Char- i j. j u j.i. • • ._

acter Refuted. never be repeated, because they imprmt on

the recipient an indelible character. They have not, indeed, been able to decide what this character is, nor on what part of man it is imprinted. It cannot be the graces of redemption ; because Rome teaches that they may all be lost by the true believer, through backsliding, while this charac- ter can never be lost, to whatever apostasy the man may sink : and because she teaches that the recipient in a state of mortal sin receives no graces through the sacrament, yet he would re- ceive the " character." And again, all the sacraments confer grace, whereas only these three confer " character" indelibly. Nor can it be any other sort of qualification for office (in ordi- nation, for instance), for men lose all qualification through in- firmity, dotage, or heresy ; yet they never lose the " character." Nor can they decide on what it is imprinted, whether on the body, mind, conscience, or affections. This uncertainty, together with the utter silence of the Scriptures, is the sufficient refutation of the absurdity. If you seek for the motive of Rome in endorsing such a doctrine, you will find it in her lust of power. By every baptism she acquires a subject of her ghostly empire, and every ordination, while it confers on the clergyman a ghostly eminence, also binds him in the tenfold bonds of the iron despotism of the canon law. Now, it suits the grasping and despotic temper of Rome to teach that these bonds of allegiance are inexorable : that when they are once incurred, no apostasy, no act of the subject's choice or will, can ever make him less a subject, or enable him to evade the tyran- nical hand of his mistress.

As to confirmation and orders, we do not feel bound to solve any questions concerning their sacramental character, because we do not believe them to be sacraments. As to bap- tism, we assign this reason why it is never to be repeated to the same subject like the Lord's supper : It is the initiating sacra- ment, like circumcision. The man who is in the house needs no repeated introduction into the house. It " signifies our ingraft- ing into. Christ." He who is grafted in once is virtually united, and requires no new union to be constituted.

748 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

APPENDIX

The scriptural doctrine of the sacraments is so vital, so widely corrupted, and so involved in the claims of Prelacy and Apostolic Succession, that it is important for the student to gain a firm grasp of the relation. Hence I desire, before proceeding to the specific discussion of the two sacraments, to clear up that connection.

Two theories of redemption prevail in Christendom, which are, in fact, essentially opposite. If one is the gospel of God, the other cannot be ; and it must be condemned as " another gospel," whose teachers ought to be "Anathema, Maranatha." The one of these plans of salvation may be decribed as the high-prelatic ; it is held by the Roman and Greek Churches, and the Episcopalian Ritualists. It is often called the theory of " sacramental grace ;" not because true Protestants deny all grace through sacraments, but because that theory endeavors to make sacraments essential to grace. The dogma of tactual suc- cession through prelates from the Apostles, is a corner-stone ; for it teaches that the Apostles transmitted their peculiar office, by ordination, to prelates, and with it, a peculiar yaoiaaa of the Holy Ghost, making every " priest " through this laying on of hands, a depository of the spiritual energy, and every " bishop," or Apostle, a " proxy" of the Saviour Himself, endued with the redemptive gifts in the same sense in which He was endued with them by His Father. Thus, for instance, prelacy inter- prets Jno. XX : 21. "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." The theory, then, amounts to this : that Christ's pro- vision for applying redemption to man consisted simply in His instituting on earth a successive, prelatic hierarchy, as His " proxies," empowered to work, through His sacraments, the salvation of submissive participants, by a supernatural power precisely analogous to that by which He enabled Peter to speak in an unknown tongue, and by which Peter and John enabled the lame man to walk. Let the student grasp distinctly what prelacy means here. It is, that the " Bishop" (who is literally Apostle,) in ordaining a " priest," does the identical thing which Paul did. Acts xix : 6, to the first Ephesian converts : " when he laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied;" and that when this priest baptizes an infant, for instance, he supernaturally removes the disease of original sin by the water and the chrism, as the man whom an Apostle had endued with the ydn'.atia of miracle-working healed epilepsy by his touch. * It follows of course, that the agency of these men, divinely endued with the yaoiaaa of spiritual healing, and of the sacraments they use, are essential to the reception of redemptive grace. So, the priestly efficiency, through the sacrament is " ex opeic opciato," and does its work on all souls to which it is applied, indepen-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 749

dent of their subjective exercises of receptive knowledge, faith and penitence ; provided the obstacle of " mortal sin" be not interposed.

Now, if our, rival theory is true, it is perfectly obvious this scheme of " sacramental grace" is a profane dream, and is related to the Gospel precisely as a fetich, or a Pagan incantation. It is an attempt to cleanse the soul by an act of ecclesiastical jugglery. This enormous profanity is not charged upon every misguided votary of prelacy. As in' so many other cases, so here, grace may render men's inward faith better than their dogma ; the Holy Spirit may mercifully turn the soul's eye aside from the soul-destroying falsehood of the scheme, to the didactic truths so beautifully taught in the scriptural sacraments and the Word. But the godliness of such semi-prelatists is in spite of, and not because of, the scheme, which is essentially Pagan and not Christian. What a bait this dogma offers to the ambition of one like Simon Magus, greedy of the power of priestcraft, need not be explained. It is not charged that every prelatist adopts the delusion from this damnable motive ; many doubtless lean to it from the unconscious prompting of self- importance. It is a fine thing, when a poor mortal can persuade himself that he is the essential channel of eternal life to his fellow, the " proxy" of the Son of God and king of heaven. The major part of the nominal Christian world has gone astray after this baptized paganism, from motives which are natural to sinful beings. They are instinctive superstition — one of the regular consequences of man's fall and apostasy — ^his unbeliev- ing, sensuous nature, craving, like all other forms of idolatry, the palpable and material as the object of its exercises, and the intense longing of the sinful soul, remorseful and still enamoured of its sin, for some palpable mode of reconciliation without hearty, inward repentance and mortification of sin. As long as men are wicked, superstitious, conscious of guilt and in love with sin, the prelatic scheme will continue to have abundance of followers.

The rival doctrine of the application of redemption is summed up in the words of our Saviour, " Sanctify them through thy truth : Thy word is truth." Or, of the Apostle : " It pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching tasave them that believe." (i Cor. i : 20). "So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. x : 4-17). Or, of the Evangelist, (Jno. i : 12) "To as many as received Him, to them gave He power [i^o'jaui) to become the sons of God ; even to them which believed on His name." Or, of Eph. iii : 17. " Christ dwells in your hearts by faith." Or, of i Jno. v : 1 1, 12. " This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath (syzc holds to) the Son, hath the life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life." We learn by the previous chapters, that the " holding" of the

750 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Son is simply faith. To exhaust tlie Bible-proofs of this view would be to repeat a large part of both Testaments. Ps. xix : 7-10 ; cxix : 9, 93, 98, 104, 130 ; Prov. iv : 13 ; Isaiah xxxiii : 6 ; liii : il ; Jer. iii : 15 ; Hos. iv : 6 ; Hab. ii : 14 ; i Jno. v :

1 ;• I Pet. I : 23 ; Luke viii : 11 ; i Cor. iv : 15 ; Jno. viii : 32; V : 24 ; XV : 3 ; Jas. i : 18 ; Acts xiii : 26 ; xx : 32. The pre- latic view of sacramental grace conflicts with the whole tenour of Scripture. This constantly teaches, that the purchased redemption is applied by the Holy Ghost, through Gospel truth intelligently believed and embraced, without other conditions or media : that hence, all preachers, even inspired Apostles, are only " ministers by whom we believed :" that Christ is the only priest in the universe : that the sacraments are only " means of grace" doing good generally like sound preaching: and that Christ reserves the administering of them to the ministers, not on any hierarchical or sacerdotal ground, but simply on grounds of e'jza^'ia and didactic propriety.

Now our refutation takes this form : First, that the whole prelatic structure rests on the assumption that whatever is said about the laying on of the Apostles' hands to confer the Holy Ghost, relates to ordination to clerical office. Second : that this reference is a mere blunder, an utter perversion of the Scriptures.

I. As a matter of fact, this unwarranted confusion does present the sole scriptural basis to which prelacy pretends. This we prove by the Romish standards. Rom. Cat. pt. 2, ch. vii, qu. 25, asserting that the administration of the "sacrament of orders" belongs to the bishop, cites Acts vi:5, 6; xiv : 22.

2 Tim. i : 6. An examination of these texts (in the proper place) will show that the very blunder charged is made — Coun- cil of Trent, Sess. 23d, De Ordine. " The Sacred Scriptures, show — that the power of consecrating, sacrificing and distribut- ing His body and blood, and also of remitting sins, has been delivered to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood." § iii. " Grace is conferred in holy orders." Canon iv. " If any- body says that the Holy Ghost is not given by holy orders, and that accordingly the bishops have no ground to say (to the recipient) " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; " or that the character is not impressed through this sacrament, etc. let him be accursed." That the grace supposed to be received in orders is not that of sanctification and redemption, is clear from Rome's assertion, that the Canonical priest may, like Judas, wholly lack this. The grace in orders must then be the other; the miracle working yd(n(Tii.a.

The Anglican Church bases its claim, so far as it is sacra- mentarian, on the same confusion, abusing the same texts. In the form for ordination, the prelate, in laying on hands, says; " Receive ye the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 75 1

imposition of our hands," &c. So, the Scripture here alluded to, John XX :2i, is the one directed'to be read before the consecra- tion ; and the words which follow are precisely those of 2 Tim. i : 6. The Anglican Church has learned her lessons from Rome well. The prelatic expositors disclose the same foundation for the sacramentarian doctrine. Theophylect, on 2 Tim. i : 6, gives, as the equivalent of the words, o^a ri^;- izc^c^sco^ zco'j yziuCov jio'j, this gloss : Tout iazc oze ae iysifjozououu s.~iaxo7:ov — thus con- founding the appointment to clerical office, with an apostle's bestowal of spiritual gifts. Chrysostom, on Acts vi :8, says : " This man (Stephen) derived a larger grace. But before his ordination he wrouglit no signs, but only after he was mani- fested. This was designed to teach them, that grace alone was not sufficient ; but that ordination is requisite, in order that the access of the spirit may take place." Dr. Hammond [Parai- nesis, Qiiere. 5th) " yicoodiala \s answerable to that imposition of hands in ordination, so often mentioned in the New Testa- ment— as generally, when by that laying on of hands, it is said they received the Holy Ghost : where the Holy Ghost contains all the yapiap.a.za. required for the pastoral function, and also sig- nifies power from on high," &c. Hear him again : " Of this "ceremony thus used" (meaning ordination to the clerical office), several mentions there are. First, Acts viii : 17, where, after Philip the deacon had preached and baptized in Samaria, Peter and John the Apostles came from Jerusalem to perfect the work, and laid hands on them [not on all that were baptized, but on some special person whom they thought meet] and they received the Holy Ghost." Dr. Hammond was high authority with pre- latists.

Another evidence of the fatal confusion, which is the basis of their whole scheme, involving the whole body of prelatists, is their own invention of the word, "Simony," to describe the procurement of " orders " by money. This term is confessedly taken from Simon Magus, of Acts viii : and of course it is meant to describe the sin which he proposed to commit, verses 18, 19. Note that the thing Simon craved was not the ability to speak with tongues, or work some such miraculous sign. Pos- sibly he had already received this : as a reprobate Judas had. He desired the ability to confer this power on others. And this criminal proposal, so perfectly defined by Simon's own words, is precisely the thing selected by Rome and the Angli- can Church, to denominate the sin of procuring clerical orders by money. The disclosure is complete. Prelacy deems that the thing Peter and John had been doing in Samaria, and the thing Simon wished to do, was transmitting the Apostolic suc- cession by ordination.

It is thus proved, that the sole basis of Scripture which prelacy has to offer is the mistaken notion, that the " laying on of hands," by which "the Holy Ghost was given," was prelatic

752 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

ordination. The theory is, that the bishop (Apostle) thus con- fers a supernatural charism on the priest ; by virtue of which the latter works the real presence in the eucharist and the " sac- rifice of the altar," remits sin, and cleanses the infant's soul with baptismal water, precisely in the same generic mode in which the primitive disciple, endued with a -^dn'Mixa, wrought a mir- acle.

II. But we complete the utter destruction of the scheme by proving that their conception of this '/tcoo&zala is a blunder, and a baseless folly. To effect this, we first describe the true understanding, and then establish it. We assert that this laying on of hands to confer the Holy Ghost was not ordina- tion at all, and did not introduce its recipients into a clerical order, or make them less laymen than before. It was the be- stowal of an extraordinary power, for a purely temporal pur- pose ; to demonstrate to unbelievers, the divine claim of the new dispensation. See i Cor. xiv : 22, with 14, 19; Mark xvi : 1 5-18 ; Acts iv : 29, 30 ; v : 12 ; Heb. ii : 4, and such like texts. The fact of Christ's resurrection is 'the corner-stone of the Gos- pel-evidence. This fact was to be established by the witness of twelve men. An unbelieving world was invited to commit its spiritual destiny to the " say-so " of twelve men, strangers and obscure. It was absolutely essential that God should sus- tain their witness by some supernatural attestations. See again, Mark xvi : 18; Acts ii : 32, 33. But twelve men could not preach everywhere : whence it was at first equally important that others should be armed with these divine "signs." Through what channel might these other evangelists best receive the power to emit them ? The answer displays clearly the con- sistency of our exposition : It was most suitable that the power in others should come through the twelve witnesses ; because thus the " signs " exhibited, reflected back an immediate attest- ation on their truth. Thus, let us represent to ourselves a child of Cornelius the Centurion, exercising gifts unquestionably su- pernatural before pagans in Caesarea, This proves that God has here intervened. But for what end ? That boy can be no eye-witness to Christ's resurrection ; and he does not claim to be : for he did not see it, and he was not acquainted with Jesus' person and features. But he can say, that he derived his power from the witness, Peter; and, Peter assured him, direct from a risen Christ. Just so far, then, as spectators verify the super- natural character of that boy's performances, they are a divine attestation to Peter's word concerning the resurrection. So Timothy's yaoi<Tii.o~a were related to the witnessing of Paul, who conferred them. In brief: it was proper that others' ability to exhibit " signs " should proceed visibly from the Apostles, be- cause the use of the signs was to sustain the testimony of the twelve. Hence the rule in the Apostolic day, which the acute Simon so clearly perceived ; that it was "through laying on of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 753

the Apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given." And I assert that there is not a case in the New Testament, where any other than an Apostle's hand was employed to confer the Holy Ghost, if any human agency was employed. Search and see. Hence it follows, that since the death of the original twelve, there has never been a human being in the Church who was able to give this gift.

For, the necessity was temporary. After the death of the Apostles, the civilized world was dotted over with churches. The Canon of Scripture was complete. The unbelieving world was furnished with another adequate line of evidence (which has been deepening to our day) in souls sanctified and pagan society purified. TKe charismatic signs ceased because they were no longer essential. See Luke xvi : 31. The world is now in such relation to the Scripture testimony, as was the Jew of Christ's day.

Now, we claim a powerful and a sufficient proof of the cor- rectness of this theory, in its satisfying consistency. It recon- ciles everything in the Scripture teachings and history. We claim that it tallies exactly with Paul's prediction of the cessation of the charismatic powers, in i Cor. xiii : 8. It explains exactly the date and mode of the cessation of genuine miracles out of the Church. Church historians know how anxiously miracles were claimed by the Fathers down to the 4th (and indeed the pres- ent) century, and the obscurity in which the facts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries are involved. Well : on our view, real mir- acles might have continued just one generation after the Twelve. John, the aged, might have conferred the power on some young evangelist, the year of the former's death. The Church would be naturally reluctant to surrender the splendid endowment. The discrimination between surprising, and truly supernatural events, was crude. The age of "pious frauds" was at hand. Thus, as the genuine miracles faded out, the spurious had their day.

Again : that this laying on of hands was not ordination and did not confer orders at all, and had nothing to do with an apostolic succession, is proved beyond all question, by these points. Paul ordains that a "neophyte" must not be permitted to receive orders. But this endowment was bestowed immedi- ately after baptism ; as in Acts viii : 15, 16 ; x : 44, 45 ; xix :6. Soundness in the faith was an absolute requisite to ordination. I Tim. ch. iii. These charisms were exercised by unbelievers. I Cor. ch. xiii. Again, apostles forbade women to receive orders : these powers were enjoyed by women, and by children. Acts, xxi : 9 : x : 44

Once more : that these endowments were not wrought by

ordination is proved by the scriptural rule of election of all

deacons and ministers, by the brotherhood, in order to their

ordination. This usage proves that the ceremony of orders

48*

754 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

did not confer qualification, but only recognized its possession by the candidates ; because its prior possession by them fur- nished to the brotherhood the sole criterion by which they were to judge the candidates suitable persons to vote for. It is on this principle, that the instructions of Acts vi : 2-6; i Tim. iii., and Titus i : 5-9, are given. Let this point be pondered.

But when we proceed to the examination of the places claimed by the Prelatists, and the bestowal of the Holy Ghost by put- ting on of apostles' hands, it can be proved exegetically that each place falls under our theory. We have seen that the main place, perverted by Rome and the Anglican Church, is Jno. xx :

21, 22. To the Protestant, these words are plain enough. Christ is God-man, Redeemer, High Priest, Sacrifice, Advocate and King to believers. These offices He devolves on nobody, but holds them always. He condesends, howev^er, to be "sent" of His Father, in the humble office of preacher in the Church. This office He now devolves on the Twelve. They, as His ministers, are to teach men the terms of pardon : for " who can forgive sin but God only ?" But as ther were to be inspired, their teachings of the terms would be authoritative and binding. This needed inspiration had been already promised. Jno. xvi : 13; and so had the miraculous attestations which would be requisite. Acts '1:4, 5. But the time was now so near at hand, that Christ renews the promise in the significant act of Jno. xx :

22. This gift of the Holy Ghost was no other than that real- ized at Pentecost. Acts ii : 4. The proofs are, i. That Christ already recognized the Eleven as endued with that form of the Holy Ghost's power which works faith, repentance, and salva- tion. See and compare Matt, xxvi : 75 ; Luke xxii : 31, 32 ; Jno. xxi:i5. Hence, the form promised in that place must have been the only other known in Scripture ; that namely, which wrought "signs." 2. Our Lord's words Acts i : 4, 5, prove it. " Wait," saith He, "for the promise of the Father which ye have heard of me." Heard of Him, where ? Evidently in John XX : 21, 22. The fulfilment was to be "not many days hence." This fixes it as the spiritual eftiision of Pentecost. But now the anti-prelatic demonstration is perfect ; for notori- ously, the thing the Holy Ghost enabled the apostles to do at Pentecost was not " the consecration of priests," or the trans- mitting of an apostolic succession ; but the exhibition of miracles to attest the resurrection.

Peter's own explanation of the Pentecostal endowment gives us another demonstration against the prelatic theory. He tells the multitude (Acts ii : 14-36. See especially his main proposition in verse 36th). This is the New Dispensation of the Messiah. (Proposition) Proved by two signs ; (a.) The spirit- ual effusions promised in Joel and such like places, (b.) The resurrection of the sacrificed Messiah. Now the structure of this inspired argument is ruinous to the Prelatist in (at least) two

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 755

points. I. V, 33. The spiritual results were to be palpable to the senses " this which ye now see and hear." But no Prelatist pretends that the "grace in holy orders" is visible and audible. The bestowal was one of visible, sensible "signs," the very one, and the only one relevant to the demonstration. 2. Verses 17, 18. The spiritual endowment was one which would fall on children a.nd females. But neither of these, according to scrip- ture, can receive ordination. So that the prelatic theory is again absolutely excluded.

Let us now proceed to Acts vi : 3-8, because this is one of the places, on which Prelacy builds chiefly. It has been proved that Stephen's and Philip's possession of the idotaiw. of Miracles was the prerequisite, not the consequence, of their election and ordination to diaconal office. But in i Tim. iii : 8, to end, where this office is expressly defined, we hear of no such qualification or function. It is not a part of the regular, permanent diaconal endowment. But the Pentecostal Church in Jerusalem was adorned with many instances doubtless among its laymen, women and children (Acts ii : 17, 18), of this gift of "signs," as well as among its ministers. The juncture demanding the separate development of the diaconal office, was critical. The spirit of faction was already awake between the Christians of Hebrew and of Hellenistic blood. The duty was going to be a nice and delicate one. Hence the Apostles' advise that the men first chosen for it be not only commended to the whole brotherhood by their moral character, but by the seal of this splendid gift. We repeat : this endowment was the prereq- uisite to their appointment, not the consequence of it. It was, expressly an appointment to "serve tables." And it cannot be argued that still Stephen and Philip had received this ydncaiw. of the Spirit, if at some previous time, yet by some ordaining act to a lower clerical grade ; because the diaconal was then the lowest grade known to the Church. Thus their argument is fatally hedged out at every point.

In Acts viii : 15, etc., "Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles' hands, the Holy Ghost was given." The endowment was, then, a visible one. But according to Prela- tists, the grace in " holy orders " is invisible (so invisible indeed, to the sober senses of Protestants, as to be wholly imaginary !) Hence, this case was not one of ordination at all, or of apos- tolic succession. So, when the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles, in Cornelius' house (Acts x : 46), they of the cir- cumcision " heard them speak with tongues." So, when Paul laid hands on the Ephesian converts. Acts xix : 6, " the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophe- sied." Here again the result was palpable. And that this was not a case of ordination at all, is proved also by the fact, that the endowment was given to all the little company, which was so small that it included but twelve males. (Verse 7.)

756 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

In I Cor. Chaps, xii. to xiv., the discussion of this ydmcFua. is so expUcit and full, as to leave nothing to be desired. The Apostle speaks of it, not as a clerical endowment, but a popu- lar. He expressly says that its object is to be a sign to unbe- lievers. He expressly foretells its utter vanishing out of the Church after a time, which our experience has long verified. But ordination and the ministry are permanent.

Let us proceed, now, to the case of Timothy, i Tim. iv : 14; and 2 Tim. i: 6; because Prelatists suppose that here we have the clearest instance of an ordination conferring the Holy Spirit. But let us see : If these references are only to Timo- thy's ordination, then it was a presbyterial ordination ("by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery"), and thus the pre- latic scheme is ruined. But if the two tests do not describe one and the same transaction, then the proof is gone that ordination by prelate imparted the Holy Ghost to Timothy ; because, if two transactions are alluded to, the Holy Ghost may have been imparted by the other. And 2. This was doubtless the case. The " presbytery " ordained Timothy to the ministry, the Holy Spirit having moved some prophetic person to advise it, as in the case of Barnabas and Saul. Acts xiii : 2. But the Apostle ("who was also a presbyter." See i Pet. v: i,) acting by his apostolic power, added some ydpcau.a of "signs," to assist his " beloved son in the ministry " in convincing unbe- lievers. This is our solution : it is evinced by its perfect cor- respondence with the history in Acts xvi. On this solution, Timothy's ydiitGfw. was derived, not from his ordination, but from a distinct action. Let 'the Prelatist reject this, and he inevitably falls back into the doctrine of presbyterial ordination abhorred by him. 3. Timothy's qualification for the minis- try was not conferred by the ordaining act, but recognized in it as pre-existing in him. For Paul himself ascribes much of this qualification to the instructions of his mother and grand- mother, 2 Tim. i: 5; iii : 14-17; and the whole of it, instru- mentally, to the inspired Scriptures. He here declares that by the instructions of the Scriptures, the minister of the gospel is "qualified and thoroughly equipped," (fi'V^rfoc i^eozcaid'^oz) for his work. This leaves nothing for the prelate's hands to do? From this fatal answer the Prelatist has no escape, except to attempt to render the term " man of God," believer, instead of minister. But this is absurd, being totally against the old Tes- tament usage, against Paul's usage, who has always his own dis- tinctive terms, -'Mzoz, o.yco:, ddtlcnz, for believers ; and against his express precedent in tlic First Epistle, to Tim. vi : 1 1 ; where " man of God " unquestionably means minister.

We have thus dealt with the cases on w'hich the Prelatist chiefly builds, and have wrested them from him. The student can examine for himself all the other cases of yecpoi^toio. in the New Testament, in the same way. It is thus evinced that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 75/

the whole basis of this scheme, of Apostohc Succession and sacramental grace, is a blunder and a confusion.

Other heads of argument against this figment might be expanded ; but they would lead us aside from the doctrine of the sacrament, which is our present object. There can be no apostolic succession, because there could not be an Apostle in the earth, since the death of John. It is impossible that any one but a cotemporary of Jesus, personally acquainted with His features, and personally cognizant of His resurrection, should be an Apostle. There cannot be any apostolic succession, again, because there is nothing to succeed to. Every Prelatist who understands himself says, the thing succeeded to is priesthood. But there has not been any priesthood on earth, and could not be any, for eighteen hundred years. The figment has been refuted again, by showing that Prelacy has no continuous suc- cession of any kind in its ministry. It has been broken fatally a hundred times, by heresy, or atheism, or impiety, or simony, or anarchy. Last : the whole scheme, is refuted by the sub- stantial identity which Scripture asserts between the redemp- tion of the new dispensation, and the old. Under the old, redemption was certainly not applied by sacramental grace. Rom. ii : 26-29; i^ • ^^> ^2. But the argument of i Cor. ch. X., teaches that it is no more so under the New Testament. (The student may find these views expanded, in the So2ithern Presbytcriaii Revieiv, January 1876 p. i.)

The high prelatic scheme of sacramental efficiency is essen- tially involved in that of the apostolic succession and the "grace of orders." Hence, the doctrine of the sacraments cannot be effectually cleared up here, without an understanding of the latter. Its discussion verges towards another department of sacred science, that of Church government. But the introduc- tion of this argument will be excused on account of the insolu- ble connection.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Acts vi:5
  2. 2 Tim. i: 6
  3. 2 Tim. i: 5

Lecture LXIII BAPTISM

SYLLABUS. I. Is water Baptism, by God's appointment, a permanent ordinance in the Church ?

Turrettin, Log. xix, Qu. 12. Hill, bk. v, ch. 6, § i, 2. 2.' What are the signification and effects of Baptism ? Consider the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Does Baptism represent, as Immersionists say, the burial and resurrection of Christ?

Turrettin, Qu. 19, g I-16. Armstrong on Baptism, pt. ii, ch. 2, pt. i, chs. 8, 9. Dick, Lect. 89.

3. What formulaiy of words should accompany baptism ? and what their sig- nification ? Are any other fomialities admissible ? or sponsors ?

Turrettin, Qu. 17. Dick. Lects. 88, 89. Knapp, ^ 139.

4. Was John's Baptism the Christian sacrament of the new dispensation? For what signification was Christ baptized by him.?

Turrettin, Qu. 16. Armstrong, pt, i, ch. 9. Dick, Lect. 88. Calvin's Inst, bk. iv. ch. 15, ^ 7, 18.

5. State the classic, and then the scriptural meanings ot the words /JaTrrw and /3a7rr/^(j and their usage when appHed in the Septuagint and New Testament to Le- vitical washings. ■

Armstrong, pt. i, chs. 3, 4, 5. Rice & Campbell's Debate, Prop. i. Da'e's Classic Bap. Dale's Judaic Bap. Carson on Bap.

6. Show that a change of meaning and mode takes place in the word /3a7rrtCw, in passing from a secular to a sacred use.

Armstrong, pt i, ch. I, &c. On whole, Conf. of Faith, ch. 28.

'npHE general remarks made concerning the sacraments, and applied to baptism, will not be repeated. The earlier

Socinians disputed the oerpetual obligation Pe'r^etulf ^^^"""^ ^^ water-baptism, as the^ Quakers now do of

both the sacraments, and on similar grounds. They plead that the new is intended to be a spiritual dispen- sation ; that salvation is always in the New Testament condi- tioned essentially on the state of heart: that. Paul (i Cor. i: 17) says, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gos- pel :"" and that the water-baptism administered by the apostles was only a temporary badge to separate the Church from Jews and Pagans at its outset. Quakers suppose that the only sac- raments to be observed in our day are those of the heart, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the feeding on Christ by faith. The answers are : That the Old Testament, with its numerous types and two sacraments, was also a spiritual dispensation, and saving benefits were then, just as much as now, conditioned on the state of the heart; that the commission to baptize men was evidently co-extensive with that to disciple and teach them, as is proved by the accompanying promise of grace ; that the commission to baptize lasts at least till all nations are converted, which is not yet accomplished ; that it was after the most glorious experiences of the true spiritual baptism, at Pen- tecost, that the water-baptism was most industriously adminis- 758

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 759

tered; and that Paul only expresses the inferior importance of baptising to preaching, and his thankfulness at having baptized only three persons. at Corinth, in view of the unpleasant fact that that ChurCh was ranking itself in parties according to the ministers who introduced them to membership.

The folly and falsehood of baptismal regeneration have been already pointed out in the former lec- 2. Meaning of ^^j-q^ ^H ^\^q arguments there aimed against the opus operatum apply here. The error most probably grew as superstition increased in the primitive Church, out of the ungarded use of the sacramental language by the early fathers, whose doctrine on this point was sounder. We know that baptism, in supposed imitation of Titus iii : 5, was currently called regeneration as early as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. It is easy to see how, as men's ideas of sacred sub- jects became more gross, this figurative use of the word intro- duced the real error.

According to the Shorter Catechism (Qu. 94) baptism " doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagements to be the Lord's." And in the Confession, chapter 28, those benefits of the Covenant of Grace are farther explained to be remission of sins and regeneration. Each part of this definition we can abundantly substantiate from scripture. See Gal. iii : 27; Rom. vi: 5 ; ■ Jno. iii ; 5 ; Titus iii : 5 ; Col. ii:il, 12, &c. ; Acts 11:38; Mark i:4; Acts xxii:i6, &c. ; Rom. vi : 3, 4; I Cor. xii : 13 : Matt, xxviii : 19 ; Rom. vi : 1 1, 12.

One of the most remarkable things about Baptism, to the attentive reader of Scripture, is the absence ish Purlficati6ns! ^^' °^ ^ ^^^ explanations of its meaning in the New Testament, and at the same time, of all appearance of surprise at its novelty. Not so with the other sacra- ment although that was a continuation of the familiar Passover. These things, among others, convince me that Baptism was no novelty to the Jews, either in its form or signification. It was the thing symbolized by the Hebrews' purifications y,a3aptafioi. The idea of the purification included both cleansing and conse- cration^ and the formalities represented both the removal of impurity from the person, in order that it might be adapted to the service of a holy God, and the consequent dedication to Him. Now, the main idea of Baptism is purification : and the element applied, the detergent element of nature, symbolizes the two-fold application of Christ's satisfaction (called His blood) and the Holy Ghost, cleansing from guilt and depravity, and thus also consecrating the cleansed person to the service of a holy God. Here then, we have involved the ideas of regenera- tion and remission, and also of engrafting and covenanting into Christ's service. This view will be farther susbtstantiated in treating the words ^o-zca[j.oz &c.

760 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Now the Immersionists, (for what purpose we shall see), Does Baptism Com- ^"^^v^ departed from the uniform faith of memorate Christ's Bur- Christendom, on this point: and while they ial and Resurrection ? do not wholly discard the purification, make baptism primarily symbolical of Christ's burial and resurrection. They teach that, as the supper commemorates His death, so baptism commemorates His burial and rising again. True, the believer, in commemorating His death in the supper, receives also a symbol of the benefits purchased for us therein. So, in commemorating His burial and resurrection, there is a symbol- izing of our burial to sin, and living again unto holiness. But the main meaning is, to set forth Christ's burial and resurrec- tion. Only three texts can be quoted for this view. Rom. vi : 3-5 ; Col. ii : 12, and i Cor. xv : 29, and especially the first.

Now our first objection to this view is its lack of all Bible support. He would be a hardy man, who Scripture Proof ° would base any theory on the exposition of a passage so obscure as i Cor. xv : 29. The most probable explanation is, that the Apostle here refers to the Levitical rule of Numb, xix : 14-19. Were there no resurrec- tion, a corpse would be like any other clod ; and there would be no reason for treating it as a symbol of moral defilement, or for bestowing on it, so religiously, the rites of sepulture. But this exposition presents not a particle of reason for regarding Chris- tian baptism as a commemoration of Christ's b.urial. The other two passages are substantially identical : and, under the figure of a death and rising again, they obviously represent a regen- eration. Compare especially Col. ii:ii, 12; Rom. vi:4. So likewise the figures of circumcision, planting, and crucifixion, all represent the same, regeneration. This the immersionist himself cannot deny. The baptism here spoken of is, then, not directly a water baptism at all : but the spiritual baptism thereby represented. Col. -ii : 1 1. It is the circumcision "made without hands." Rom. vi : 3, 4. It is a baptism not into water, but into death, i. e., a death to carnality. Therefore it is clear the symbolism here points to the grace of regeneration, and not to any supposed grace in Christ's burial. His burial and res- urrection are themselves used here as symbols, to represent- regeneration. As justly might the immersionist say that bap- tism commemorates a crucifi.xion, a planting, a building, a change of a stone into flesh, a putting off dirty garments ; because these are all Scripture figures of regeneration, of which baptism is a figure. Nor is there in these famous passages any reference to the mode of baptism, because first the Apostle's scope in Rom. vi, forbids it : and second, the same mode of interpretation would compel us to find an analogy in the mode of baptism, to a planting and a crucifixion. See Scott in loco.

But second : by making baptism the commemoration of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 761

Christ's burial, and resurrection, the sacra- No Roper Sacra- ^igntal analogy (as well as the warrant) is men a na ogy. totally lost. This analogy is not in the ele-

ment to the grace ; for in that aspect, there can be no resem- blance. Water is not like a tomb, nor like the Holy Ghost, nor like Christ's atoning righteousness. Nor is bread like a man's body, nor wine like his blood. The selection of the sacramental element is not founded on a resemblance, but on an analogy. Distinguish. The bread and wine are elements, not because they are like a body and blood, in their qualities : but because there is a parallel in their uses, to nourish and cheer. So the water is an element of a sacrament, because there is a paraUel in its uses, to the thing symbolized. The use of water is to cleanse. Where now is any analogy to Christ's burial ? Nor is there even a resemblance in the action, not even when the immersionist's mode is granted. Water is not like a Hebrew tomb. The temporary demission of a man into the former, to be instantly raised out of it, is not like a burial.

Third : If we may judge by the two sacraments of the old dispensation, and by the supper, sacraments ViS"'^'' ^"""'^ ^°^ (always few) are only adopted by God to be commemorative of the most cardinal transac- tions of redemption. Christ's burial was not such. Christ's burial is nowhere proposed to us as an essential object of faith. His death and the Spirit's work are. His death and resurrec- tion are ; the former already commemorated in the other sacra- ment. And besides ; it would seem strange that the essential work of the Holy Ghost should be commemorated by no sacra- ment, while that of Christ is commemorated by two ! In the old dispensation the altar and the laver stood side by side. And here would be a two-fold covenant, with two seals to one of its promises, and none to the other !

And last : The Immersionist is involved by his theory in intense confusions. In the gospel history, Christ's death pre- ceded His burial and resurrection : so the commemoration of the death ought to precede. But the Immersionist makes it follow, with peculiar rigidity. Again : the Supper was only practised either when the death was already accomplished, or immediately at hand ; so that its commemorative intent was at once obvious. But the baptism was instituted long before the burial. Did it then point forward to it ? Are sacraments types ? And this difficulty presses peculiarly on the Immersionist, who makes John's baptism identical with Christian. What then did John's baptism signify to Jews, before Christ was either dead or buried, and before these events were foreknown by them ?

In Matt, xxviii : 19 the formulary of words to be em- ployed is given by Christ explicitly, i:: rb Nam^eT'''"' '" ^^'"'' <^'^^/'''' &c., and this preposition is retained in every case but one. Had our Saviour said

762 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

that baptism should be ev zcu ovoimzc (dative), &c., His meaning would have appeared to be that the rite was applied by the authority of that name, i. e., hebraice, of that person. The one case in which this formulary occurs (Acts x : 48) is probably to be explained in this way ; but the uniform observance of the other formulary, in all the other cases (especially see i Cor. i : 13 and x : 2), indicates clearly that the meaning of the rite is, that it purifies and dedicates us unto the Trinity, bringing us into a covenant relation to Him. Here we see an additional argument for the definition given in § i, of the meaning of bap- tism, and against the Immersionist idea.

Cases are notunfrequent(e. g., in Acts viii : 16; x :48 ; xix : 5) in which no name is mentioned but that of Christ. But I think we are by no means to infer hence. that the apostles ever omit- ted any of the formulary enjoined by Christ. Jews would have no objection to a baptism to God the Father. (John's was such, and exceedingly popular). They were used to them. But Christ Jesus was the stumbling-block ; and hence when the historian would indicate that a Hebrew had made a thorough submission to the new dispensation, he would think it enough to say that he had assumed Christ's name. The rest was then easy to believe and was therefore left to be inferred.

The Church of Rome accompanied baptism with a number . , of superstitious rites, of which she still re-

buperstitious Ad-,- .\ . 1^1 r-i 1 r t^ 1 j

juncts. tarns the most, and the Church of tngland^

a part. They were, blessing the water in the font, exorcism, renouncing the Devil, anointing in the form of a cross, anointing the eye-lids and ears with spittle, breathing on the candidate, washing the whole body in puns natiiralibus, the baptism proper, tasting salt and honey, putting on the white robe, or at least, taking hold of a white cloth, and an im- position of hands. The last, now separated from baptism, con- stitutes the sacrament of confirmation. We repudiate all these, for two reasons : that they are unauthorized by Scripture, and, worse than this, that their use is suggestive of positive error and superstition.

The use of sponsors, who are now always other than the proper parents (when any sponsors are used), in the Episcopal and Romish Churches, has grown from gradual additions. In the early Church the spon- sors were always the natural parents of the infant, except in cases of orphanage and slavery : and then they were either the master, or some deacon or deaconess. (See Bingham, p, 523, &c.) When an adult was in extremis, and even speechless, or maniacal, or insensible, if it could be proved that he had desired baptism, he w^as permitted to receive it, and some one stood sponsor for him. If he recovered, this sponsor was ex- pected to watch over his religious life and instruction. And in the case of Catechumens, the sponsor was at first some clergy-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 765

man or deaconess, who undertook his rehgious guidance. It was a universal rule that no one was allowed to be sponsor un- less he undertook this bona fide. How perverted is this usage now ! Our great objection to the appearance of any one but the natural parents, where there are any, or in other cases, of him who is in loco parentis, as sponsors, is this : that no other human has the right to dedicate the child, and no other has the opportunity and authority to train it for God. To take these vows in any other sense is mockery.

The Reformers strenuously identify John's baptism ■ with f T T, ' '^^^ Christian, arguing that his mission was a Baptism. "'^^ ° Jo ns ^^^^ ^^ dawn of the new dispensation, that it was the baptism of repentance, an evangeli- cal grace, and that it is also stated (Luke iii : 3) to be for the remission of sins. But later Calvinists hold, against them and the Immersionists, that it was a baptism for a different purpose, and therefore not the same sacramentally, however it may have resembled as to mode, . that of the Christian Church. Their reasons are, that it was not administered in the name of the Trinity, and did not bring the parties into covenant with Christ. 2nd. It was not the initiatory rite into the Church, and did not signify our ingrafting into Christ, for the old dispensation still subsisted, and those who received the rite were already in the Church of that dispensation, whereas Christ's was not yet opened, and therefore could not receive formal adherents. But, 3d, Paul seems clearly (Acts xix : 5) to have repeated Christian baptism on those who already had John's. Calvin and Turret- tin indeed evade this fact by making verse 5 the words of Paul (not of Luke), reciting the fact that these brethren had already (when they heard John) received baptism. But this gloss is proved erroneous, not only by the whole drift of the passage (why had they not received charisms ?), by the force of the p.zv and ^s, but above all by this : that if this verse 5 means John's baptism, then John baptized in the name of Jesus. But see Jno. i: 33 ; Matt, xi : 3. John's baptism was therefore not the sacrament of the new dispensation, but one of those puri- fications, preparing the way of the Messiah about to come, with which, we believe, the Jewish mind was familiar.

The interesting question arises : With what intent and

meaning did Christ submit to it? He could Intent of Christ's i.i.j jj •• \\r

Baptism. ^o^ repent, and needed no remission. We

think it clear He could not have taken it in these senses. Says Turrettin : He took it vicariously, doing for His people, all that any one of them owed, to fulfill the law in their stead ; and He refers, for support, to the fact that He punctually conformed to all the Levitical ritual, — was circum- cised, attended sacrifices, &c. But the cases are not parallel. Christ as a Jew, (according to His humanity), would properly render obedience to all the rules of the dispensation under

764 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

which He came vicariously ; but it is not therefore proper that He should comply with the rules of a dispensation to be wholly founded on Him as Mediator, and which rules were all legis- lated by Him. This for those, who assert that John's baptism was the Christian Sacrament. There is no evidence that Christ partook of His other sacrament. See Luke xxii : 17. And while His vicarious attitude would make a ceremonial purifica- tion from guilt appropriate, it w^ould not make a rite significant of repentance appropriate. Christ did not repent for imputed guilt, which did not stain His character. Nor would the other part of the signification apply to Him : for this imputed guilt was not pardoned to Him : He paid the debt to the full.

There seems then, to be no explanation ; except that

Christ's baptism was His priestly inaugura- cration to pJiesthooT" ^ion. John, himself an Aaronic priest, might

naturally administer it. His age confirms it ; compare Luke iii : 23, with Numb, iv : 3. A purification by water was a part of the original consecration of the Aaronic family. See Levit. viii : 6; or better, Exod. xxx : 17-21, &c. The unction Christ received immediately after, by the descent of the Holy Ghost. And last, John's language confirms it, together with the immediate opening of Christ's official work. We now approach the vexed question of the mode of bap- Real Ouestion as ^i^m. The difference between us and immer- to Mode. Neither sionists is only this: whether the entire Etymology nor Secular immersion of the body in water is essential Use Defines it. , t 1 1 . • -r^ 1 -^ t

to valid baptism, l^orwe admit any applica- tion of water, by an ordained ministry, in the name of the Trinity, to be valid baptism. The question concerning the mode is of course one of meaning and usage of the words descriptive of the ordinance. But this preliminary question arises : of what usage ? that of the classic, or of Hellenistic Greek? We answer, chiefly the latter; for the obvious reason that this was the idiom to which the writers of the New Testa- ment were accustomed, especially when speaking Greek on a sacred subject. And this, enlightened immersionists scarcely dispute. Another preliminary question arises : should it be found that the usage of the words (ia-zCo), &c., when applied to common and secular washings, gives them one uniform mean- ing, would that be evidence enough that its meaning was pre- cisely the same, in passing to a sacred ritual, and assuming a technical, sacred sense ? I reply, by no means. There is scarcely a word, which has been borrowed from secular into sacred language, which does not undergo a necessary modifica- tion of meaning. Is iy.ylr^m(i. the same word in the Scriptures, which it is in common secular Greek ? riota^i'jztoo:; means an elderly person, an embassador, a magistrate. Is this the pre- cise meaning of the Church presbyter of the New Testament? He might be a young man. Above all is this change marked

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 765

in the word for the other sacrament, de2-vou. This word in sec- ular, social use, whether in or out of Scripture, means the even- ing meal ; and usually a full one, often a banquet, in which the bodily appetite was liberally fed. The Lord's Supper is usu- ally not in the evening ; it is not a meal ; and by its design has no reference to satisfying the stomach, or nourishing the body. See I Cor. xi. Indeed, it is impossible to adopt a secular and known word, as the name c f this peculiar institution, a Chris- tian Sacrament, without, in the very act of adopting it, super- inducing upon it some shade of meaning different from its sec- ular. Even if the favorite word of the Immersionists, immer- sion, were adopted, as the established name in English, of the sacrament ; it would ipso facto receive an immediate modifica- tion of meaning as a sacramental word. Not any immersion whatever would constitute a sacrament. So that this very spe- cific word would then require some specification. Thus we see that the assertion of the Immersionist, that f^a~-i^io is a purely specific word, and, as a name of a sacrament, admits of no definition as to mode, would be untrue, even if it were per- fectly specific in its common secular meaning, both in and out of Scripture. We might grant, then, that (^aTtrc^w, whenever non-ritual, is nothing but plunge, dip under, and still sustain our cause.

But we grant no such thing. Let it be borne in mind that 6. Immersionist Pos- the thing the Immersionist must prove is no tulate as to Usage of less than this : that ^aTizi^w, &c., never can ^^°'''^^^- mean, in secular uses, whether in or out of

the Scriptures, anything but dip under, plunge; for nothing less will prove that nothing but dipping wholly under is valid bap- tism. If the words mean frequently plunging, but sometimes wetting or washing without plunging, their cause is lost. For then it is no longer absolutely specific of mode. Let us then examine first the non-ritual or secular usage of the words, both in Hellenistic (Sept. Josephus) Greek, and in the New Testa- ment. We freely admit that j?d7TTw very often means to dip, and [^a--i^co still more often, nay, usually, but not exclusively.

And first, the trick of Carson is to be exposed, by which he endeavors to evade the examination of be'^Examrn°ed.^""™ '" the shorter form, t^d7:zco, on the plea that ,9«-- ri^to and its derivatives are the only ones ever used in relation to the sacrament of baptism. True ; but by what process shall we more properly discover the meaning of l3a-Tc^(o than by going to that of its root, f-^d-'o), from which it is formed by the simple addition of iC^o, meaning verbal activity, (the making of anything to be j^aTrr). Well, we find the lexi- cons all defining f^d-rco, dip, wash, stain. Suidas, tjJj'jco, to wash clothes. These definitions are sustained by the well known case, from the classics, of Homer's lake, /9£;9«///7.ivov„ tinged with the blood of a dying mouse, which Carson himself

766 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

gives up. But among the instances from Hellenistic Greek, the more important to our purpose, consult the following : Rev. xix : 13, a vesture stained with blood, ^ier'jo.ijLne'^oi^; Luke xvi : 24 ; Ex. xii : 22 ; i Sam. xiv : 27 ; Levit. iv : 6, 7 ; Dan. iv: 33. So there are cases of the secular use of the word fia-zi^co, where immersion is not expressed. See the lexicons quoted by Drs. Owen and Rice, in which it is defined, not only to immerse, but also to wash, substantiated by the cases of "the blister baptized with breast milk," in classic Greek, and of the altar, wood and victim of Elijah baptized by pouring on water in Origen. Hence, the common and secular usage is not uniformly in favor of dipping.

But if it were, the question would still be an open one ; for it may well be, that when transferred to

Ba-TiCu not Always t„- v 1 i-i j -n j

J-)- ■' religious ritual, the word will undergo some

such modification as we saw uniformly occurs in all other words transferred thus. We proceed, then, one step nearer, and examine the meaning of the word in the Sep- tuagint and New Testament, when applied to religious rituals, other than the Christian sacrament itself; that is, to Jewish puri- fications. And here we find that the specific idea of the Jewish religious baptism was not dipping, but an act symbolical of purification, of which the actual mode was, in most cases, by affusion. In 2 Kings v: 14; Naaman baptized himself {tfio-ziZo-o) seven times in the Jordan. This may have been dipping, but taking into account the Jewish mode of purifica- tion, was more probably by affusion. Eccl. xxxiv : 25; the Septuagint says : " He that baptizeth himself [fia-ri^eruc) after he toucheth a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washings ?" How this baptism was performed, the reader may see in Numb, xxxi : 19, 24, and xix : 13-20. In Judith xii : 7, this chaste maiden is said to have baptized herself at a fountain of water by a vast camp ! In Josephus Antiq. Bk. 4, ch. iv., the ashes of the red heifer used in purifying are said to be baptized in spring water. ^

In the New Testament there are four instances where the New Testament Use Jewish ritual purifications are described by of the Verb Not Al- the term baptize; and in all four cases it was ways Dip. undoubtedly by affusion. Mark vii : 4 :

Luke xi : 38; John ii : 6; Heb. ix: 10; vi : 2. (The last may possibly be Christian baptism, though its use in the plural would rather show that it included the Jewish.) Now that all these purifications called here fianTiaiJioi and xa&afnajioi were by affusion, we learn, i. From the Levitical law, which describes various washings and sprinklings, but not one immer- sion of a man's person for purification. 2. From well known antique habits still prevalent in the East, which limited the , washings to the hands and feet, and performed them by affu- sion. Compare 2 Kings iii : 11 ; Exod. xxx : 21. 3. From

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. ']6y

comparison of the two passages, Mark vii : 4, and Luke xi : 38 ; with Jno. ii : 6. These water pots were too narrow at the mouth, and too small (holding about two bushels) to receive a person's body, and were such as were borne on the shoulders of female servants. 4. From the great improbability that Jews would usually immerse all over so often, or that they could. 5. From the fact that they are declared to have practised, not only these baptisms of their persons, but of their utensils and massive couches. Numb, xix: 17, 18. It is simply prepos- terous that these should have been immersed as often as cere- monially defiled. Last, the Levitical law, which these Jews professed to observe with such strictness, rendered an immer- sion impossible anywhere but in a deep running stream, or liv- ing pit of a fountain. For if anything ceremonially unclean went into a vessel of standing water, no matter whether large or small, the water was thereby defiled, and the vessel and all other water put into that vessel, and all persons who got into it. See Levit. xi : 32 to 36.

It is true that Immersionists pretend to quote Talmudists (of whom I, and probably they, know nothing), saying that these purifications were by immersion ; and that Solomon's "sea" was for the priests to swim in. But the Talmud is 700 years A. D., and excessively absurd.

Now, if the religious baptisms of the Jews were not by dipping, but by affusion; if their specific idea was that of religious purification, and not dip- ping; and if Christian baptism is borrowed from the Jewish, and called by the same name, without explanation, can any one believe that dipping is its specific and essential form ? Immer- sionists acknowledge the justice of our inference, by attempting to dispute all the premises. Hard task ! •

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. vi: 5
  2. Acts 11:38
  3. Mark i:4
  4. Rom. vi:4
  5. 2 Kings v: 14
  6. Heb. ix: 10

SYLLABUS

7. What would most probably be the mode of baptism adopted for a universal religion?

Ridgley. Qu. 166. .

8. What mode is most appropriate to the symbohcal meaning of baptism ? Consult Is. Iii:l5; compare Matt, iii : 11; Acts i : 5 ; ii : 2, 4; ii: 15-18; ii •' 33 j X : 44-48 ; xi : 16, 17. Alexander on Isaiah. Armstrong on Bap., pt. i, ch. 7. Review of Theodosia Ernest.

9. What mode appears most probable from the analogy of the figurative and spiritual baptisms of Matt, xx : 20-23 ; Mark x : 38, 39 ; Luke xii : 50 ; i Cor. x : 2 ; I Pet. iii : 21 ; i Cor. xii : 13 ; Gal. iii : 27 ; Eph. iv : 5 ; Rom. vi : 3 ; Col. ii : 12.

See Armstrong on Bap. pt. i, chs. 6, 8. Commentaries on Scriptures cited.

10. Argue the mode from Jno. 3 : 25, 26. Armstrong on Bap. pt. i, ch. 2. 9.

11. Discuss the probable mode observed in John's baptisms in Jordan and at ^non, the Eunuch's, Paul's, the three thousand's at Pentecost, Cornelius,' the Philip-- plan jailor's.

Armstrong, pt. ii, chs. 3, 4. Dr. Leonard Woods on Baptism. Taylor's Apostolic Baptism. Robinson's Reasearches in Palestine. Commentaries. Review of Theodosia Ernest.

12. What would be the ecclesiasticsl results of the Immersionist dogma ? Review of Theodosia Ernest.

13. What was the customary mode of baptism in the early Church, subsequent to the apostles ?

Bingham's '," Origines Sacrse," Art. " Bapt." Taylor's Apostolic Baptism. Church Histories. Review of Theodosia Ernest, See on whole. Rice and Campbell's Debate. Fairchild on Baptism. Beecheron Baptism.

A CONSIDERATION of some probable weight may be

drawn from the fact that Christianity is intended to be a

universal religion. Remember that it is-

7 Dipping Impracti- characterized by fewness and simplicity of cable Sometmies. . . . ■^ , . . . . ^ y ,

rites, that it is rather spiritual than ntual,

that its purpose was to make those rites the reverse of burden- some, and that the elements of the other sacraments were chosen from articles common, cheap, and near at hand. Now, in many extensive countries, water is too scarce to make it con- venient to accumulate enough for an immersion ; in other regions all waters are frozen over during half the year. la many cases infirmity of body renders immersion highly incon- venient and even dangerous. It seems not very probable that, under these circumstances, a dispensation so little formalistic as the Christian, would have made immersion essential to the validity of baptism, for a universal Church, amidst all cHmes and habits.

But we derive an argument of far more importance, from

the obviously correct analogy between the is Always^ Shed^ForUr ^^^ °^ affusion and the graces signified and

sealed in baptism. It is this which Immer- 768

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 769

sionists seek to evade when they endeavor, contrary to Scrip- ture, to make baptism signify and commemorate primarily Christ's burial and resurrection. (Hence the importance of refuting that dream). The student will remember, that the selection of the element is founded, not upon the resemblance of its nature (for of this there can be none, between the mate- rial and spiritual), but on the analogy of its use to the graces symbolized. Water is the detergent element of nature. The great meaning of baptism is our cleansing from guilt by expi- ation (blood), and our cleansing from the depravity of heart, by the Holy Ghost. Now, in all Bible language, without a single exception, expiation is symbolized as sprinkled, or afifused, or put on; and the renewing Spirit, as descending, or poured, or falling. See all the Jewish usages, and the whole tenour of the promises. Levit. xiv : 7, 51 ; xvi : 14 ; Numb, viii : 7 ; xix : 18 ; Heb. ix : 19-22, especially last verse; ix : 14 ; x : 22 ; Levit vii ; 14 ; Exod. xxix : 16, 21, &c. ; Ps. xlv : 2 ; Is. xliv : 3 ; Ps. Ixxii : 6 ; Is. xxxii : 15 ; Joel ii : 28, 29, quoted in Acts ii.

Nor is the force of thig analogy a mere surmise of ours.

See Is. lii : 15, where it is declared that the TeSn? Instlnces'?^'^ Redeemer, by His mediatorial, and especially

His suffering work, "shall sprinkle many na- tions." The immediate reference here doubtless is not to water baptism, but to that which it signifies. But when God chooses in "His own Word to call those baptismal graces a sprinkling, surely it gives no little authority to the belief that water bap- tism is by sprinkling ! Immersionists feel this so acutely that they have even availed themselves of the infidel glosses of the German Rationalists, who to get rid of the Messianic features of this glorious prophecy, render H]'' — "to cause to start up," "to

startle." The only plea they bring for this unscrupulous departure from established usage of the word is, that in all the other places this verb has as its regimen the element sprinkled, and not the object. This objection Dr. J. A. Alexander pro- nounces frivolous, and denies any Hebrew or Arabic support to the substituted translation. Again: In Ezek. xxxvi : 25, are promises which, although addressed primarily to the Jews of the Captivity, are evidently evangelical ; and there the sprink- ling of clean water symbolizes the gospel blessings of regene- ration, remission, and spiritual indwelling. The language is so strikingly favourable to us, that it seems hardly an overstraining of it to suppose it a prediction of the very sacrament of bap- tism. But this we do not claim.

Our argument is greatly strengthened when we proceed to

New Testament Ex- the New Testament. Collate Matt, iii : 1 1 ;

an-.ples of Grace by Affu- Acts i : 5 ; ii : 2-4 ; ii : 1 5-18 ; ii : 33 ; x :

®'°"- 44, 45, 48 ; xi : 16, 17. Here our argument

49*

770 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

is two-fold. First : that both John and Christ baptize with water, not in water. Tliis language is wholly appropriate to the application of water to the person, wholly inappropriate to the application of the person to the water. No Immersionist would speak of dipping with water. They do indeed reclaim that the preposition is iv here translated " with," and should in all fidelity be rendered "in," according to its admitted use in the large majority of New Testament cases. This we utterly deny ; first, because in the mouth of a Hebraistic Greek, iv being the established equivalent and translation of 2 may naturally and

frequently mean " with ;" but second and chiefly because the par- allel locutions of Luke iii : i6 ; Acts i : 5 ; xi : i6 ; Eph. v : 26 ; Heb. x : 22, identify the iu uoari, &c., with the instrument. And from the same passages we argue farther, that the mode of the baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire, is fixed most indis- putably by the description of the event in Acts ii : 2 and 4. The long promised baptism occurred. And what was it ? It was the sitting of tongues of fire on each Apostle, and the " descent," the fall, the "pouring out," the " shedding forth," of the spiritual influences. To make the case still stronger, if possible, when the spiritual affusion on Cornelius and his house occurred, which made Peter feel that he was justified in author- izing their water-baptism, he informs his disapproving brethren in Jerilsalem (Acts xi : 15, 16) that the " falling of the Holy Ghost on them as on us at the beginning," caused him " to .re member" the great promise of a baptism, not with water only, but with the Holy Ghost and with fire. If baptism is never an affusion, how could such a suggestion ever arise ?

This reasoning is so cogent, that Immersionists feel the

^ . . , necessity of an evasion. Their Coryphseus,

Evasions Answered, r^ . . -nti .. 1

Carson, suggests two. No element, nor mode

of applying an element, he says, can properly symbolize the essence of the Holy Ghost. It is immense, immaterial, unique. All men are at all times immersed in it. To suppose any analogy between water affused, and this infinite, spiritual essence, is gross materialism. Very true ; yet here is some sort and sense in which a baptism with the Holy Ghost occurred ; and if it is gross anthropo-morphism to liken His ubiquitous essence to water affused, it is equally so to liken it to water for plunging. If there is no sense in which the analogy between the baptismal element and the influences of the Holy Ghost can be asserted, then it is God's Word which is in fault ; for He has called the outpouring of those influences a baptism. The truth is, that here, just as when God is said to come, to go, to lift up His hand, it is not the divine essence which changes its place, but its sensible influences.

The other evasion is, to say that because this baptism is wholly figurative, and not a proper and literal baptism at all,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 77 1

■therefore it can contain no reference whatever to mode. We deny both premise and conclusion : the conclusion, because Immersionists infer mode, with great positiveness, from a merely figurative baptism, in Rom. vi : 4 ; and the premise, because the baptism of Pentecost was in the best sense real, the most real baptism that ever was in the world. It was, indeed, not material : but if its literal reality be denied, then the inspiration of the Apostles is denied, and the whole New Testament Dis- pensation falls.

Our argument, then, is summed up thus : Here was a spir- itual transaction, which Christ was pleased This Argument Sum- ^^ ^^^j j^jg baptism, in the peculiar sense. In this baptism the outward element de- scended upon the persons of the recipients, and the influences of the Holy Ghost, symbolized thereby, are spoken of as fall- ing. Water baptism, which is intended, like the fire, to symbol- ize the spiritual baptism, should therefore be also applied by affusion.

While we deny that these memorable events formed only a figurative baptism, yet the word baptism is 9. Argument from ^gg^j [^ Scripture in a sense more properly Figurative Baptisms. . , 1 n it

figurative, and wholly non-sacramental. Im- mersionists profess to find in all these an allusion to dipping ; but we shall show that in every case such allusion is uncertain, or impossible.

The first instance is that of Christ's baptism in His suffer- ings at His death. Matt, xx : 20, 23 ; Mark Son'ot'^ Baptism m ^ . ^g^ ^^ . ^^ke xii : 50. Although Luke refers to a different conversation, yet the allusion to His dying sufferings is undoubtedly the same. Now, it is common to say that these sufferings were called a baptism, because Christ was to be then covered with anguish as with an overwhelming flood. Even granting this, it must be remembered the Scriptures always speak of God's wrath as being poured out, and however copious the shower, an effusion from above bears a very questionable resemblance to an immer- sion of the person into a body of liquid beneath. Some (as Dr. Armstrong) find in this figure no reference to the mode of baptism, but suppose that the idea is one of consecration sim- ply. Christ is supposed to call His dying sufferings a baptism, because by them He was inducted into His kingly office. But this is not wholly satisfactory. The true explanation is obvi- ously that of the Greek fathers. As is well known to students of sacred history, the martyr's sufferings were considered his baptism. And so literal was the notion expressed by this, that the Fathers gravely argue that by martyrdom the unbaptized catechumen, who witnesses a good confession, becomes a bap- tized Christian, and has no reason whatever to regret his lack of water baptism, supposed by them to be, in other cases,

772 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

essential. To the question why martyrdom is called by them a

baptism, they answer with one voice, because Christ was

pleased to call His own martyrdom a baptism, and to apply the

same to the pious sufferings of James and John. And they say

farther, quoting the same texts, that the reason Christ calls His

dymg sufferings a baptism is, because they cleansed away sin,

as the water of baptism symbolically does. Here, then, is no

reference to mode of water baptism, and these Greek fathers,

if they in any case press the figure to a signification of mode,

speak of Christ's body as baptized, or stained with His own

blood, a baptism by affusion. And the baptism of martyrdom

is explained as a baptism of blood and fire.

I Cor. X : 2 represents the Israelites as baptized unto

„ ^ . Moses in the cloud and in the sea, in passing-

Israels Baptism to ,i t-, , x • • i. r i- i i i.^. Z.

Moses. the Ked sea. Immersionists ioohshly attempt

to strain a reference to immersion here, by saying that the Israelites were surrounded with water, having the sea as a wall on the either hand, and the cloud overhead. But unfortunately for this far-fetched idea, it is expressly said that Israel v.-ent over dry-shod. And the cloud was not over them, but behind them. Nor is there any proof that it was an aqueous cloud (it was fire by night and luminous); and the alle- gorizing Greek Fathers currently understand it as representing, not the water of baptism, but God's Holy Ghost. Nor have we any proof that even aqueous vapor can be substituted for the sacramental element. There was an immersion in the case, but it was that of Pharaoh and his hosts. The lost were immersed, the saved were baptized unto Moses ! The sense of the pas- sage obviously is, that by this event Israel were dedicated, sep- arated unto that religious service of which Moses was the teacher. The word baptize here carries no reference to mode, but has its proper sense of religious separation.

The same is its meaning in i Cor. xii : 13; Gal. iii : 27; . Eph. iv : 5, and i Pet. iii : 21. When the Into Christ! ^^ ^"^ believer is said to be baptized into (or unto) Christ, or into His one body, and thus to have put on Christ, there can be no allusion to mode, because then it would be the preposterous idea of immersing" into Christ, or into Plis mystical body, instead of into water. The exact idea expressed^ is that of a consecrating separation. Baptism is here conceived by the Apostle as our separation from the ruined mass of mankind and annexation to the Saviour in our mystical union. So in i Pet. iii : 21, baptism is called a figure like (avr.'r'.»-ov) to the salvation of Noah's family in the ark. This saving was from water, not by water, and it was effected in the ark. Here again there is no modal refer- ence to immersion, for the parties saved were not dipped, and all who were dipped were lost. The baptism of Noah's family was therefore their separation from a sinful world, effected by

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 773

the waters of the flood. If baptism in its most naked, spiri- tual meaning, carries to Hebrews the idea of a religious separ- ation, it is very evident what mode it would suggest, should they permit their minds to advert to mode. Their separations were by sprinklings. The remaining passage (Eph. iv : 5) could only have been supposed to teach the essential necessity of observing water baptism in only one mode, by a mind insen- sible to the elevation and sacredness of the passage. It is the glorious spiritual unity between Christians and their Divine Head, resulting from the separating consecration which bap- tism represents.

The identification of baptism with the purification of the Jews, in Jno. iii : 25, 26, throws some light ficadoZ^^^'"" '' ^""' "pon its mode. The question about purifying, agitated between the Jews and some of the Baptist's disciples, (v. 25), is evidently the question which they propound to John himself (in v. 26), viz: What was the mean- ing of Christ's baptizing. The whole tenour of John's answer proves this, for it is all addressed- to the explanation of this point: why Christ, baptized by him, and thus seem.ingly his disciple, should administer a baptism independent of, him. Any other explanation leaves an absurd chasm between verses 25 and 26. Baptism, then, is 'xad^aficaiw::, a striking testimony to the correctness of our account of its signification, a matter which we found to bear, in so important a way, upon its mode. But farther : Let anyone consider the Septuagint use of this word, and he cannot easily remain in doubt as to the mode in which a Jew would naturally administer it.

My time will not permit me to go into a full discussion of

the actual mode indicated by the sacred his- II. Mode of New , • • 1 r i^ „4.- ^„ • -v at

Testament Baptism. ^onan m each case of baptism in the ^ew

Testament. Such detail is, indeed, not necessary, inasmuch as you may find the work well done in several of your authors, and especially in Armstrong, Part H, ■ch. 3, 4. The result of a thorough examination was well stated by a divine of our Church thus : Rule three columns on your blank paper ; mark the first, 'Certainly by immersion.; the sec- ond, * Probably by immersion ; the third, 'Certainly not by immersion.' Then, after the careful study of the Greek Testa- ment, enter each case where it properly belongs. Under the first head there will be not a single instance ; under the second, there may be a few ; while the larger number will be under the third. Immersionists, when they read that John was baptizing in Jordan, and again at ^Enon, " because there was much water there," conclude that he certainly immersed his penitents. But when we note that the language may as well be construed 'at' Jordan, and that the ' many waters ' of ^non were only a clus- ter of springs ; considering also the unlikeliness of one man's performing such a multitude of immersions, and the uninspired

774 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

testimony of the early Church as to the method of our Saviour's baptism, the probabihties are all turned the other way. So, the improbability of sufficient access to water, at Pentecost, and the impossibility of twelve men's immersing three thousand in one afternoon,, make the immersion of the Pentecostal converts out of the question. This is the conclu- sion of the learned Dr. Edward Robinson, after an inquiry on the spot. In like manner, the Eunuch's baptism may possibly have been by dipping, but was more probably by affusion ; while the cases of Paul, Cornelius, and the jailer, were certainly in the latter mode.

The odious ecclesiastical consequences of the Immer-

sionist dogma should be pressed ; because

12. The Dogma Un- ^j^gy form a most potent and just argument

churches all. ■'. . ah- , i i

agamst it. All parties are agreed, that bap- tism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible Church of Christ. The great commission was : Go ye, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the Trinity. Baptism recognizes and constitutes the outward discipleship. Least of all, can any immersionist dispute this ground. Now, if all other forms of baptism than immersion are not only irregular, but null and void, all unimmersed persons are out of the visible Church. But if each and every member of a paedobaptist visible Church is thus unchurched: of course the whole body is unchurched. All paedobaptist societies, then, are guilty of an intrusive error, when they pretend to the character of a visible Church of Christ. Consequently, they can have no ministry ; and this for several reasons. Surely no valid office can exist in an association whose claim to be an ecclesiastical commonwealth is utterly invalid. When the temple is non-existent, there can be no actual pillars to that temple. How can an unauthorized herd of unbaptized persons, to whom Christ concedes no church authority, confer any valid office ? Again : it is preposterous that a man should receive and hold office in a commonwealth where he himself has no citizenship ; but this unimmersed paedobaptist minister, so-called, is no member of any visible Church. There are no real ministers in the world, except the Immersionist preachers ! The pretensions of all others, therefore, to act as ministers, and to administer the sacraments, are sinful intrusions. It is hard to see how any intelligent and conscientious Immersionist can do any act, which countenances or sanctions this profane intrusion. They should not allow any weak inclinations of fraternity and ■ peace to sway their consciences in this point of high principle. They are bound, then, not only to practise close communion, but to refuse all ministerial recognition and communion to these intruders. The sacraments cannot go beyond the pale of the visible Church. Hence, the same stern denunciations ought to be hurled at the Lord's Supper in paedobaptist societies, and at all their prayers and preachings in public, as at the iniquity of

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY 775

" baby-sprinkling." The enlightened immersionist should treat all these societies, just as he does that ' Synagogue of Satan,' the Papal Church : there may be many good, misguided believers in them; but no church character, ministry, nor sacraments whatever. But let the student now look at the enormity of this con- clusion. Here are bodies of ministers adorned by the Lord with as many gifts and graces as any Immersionists ; actually doing the largest part of all that is done on earth, to win the world to its divine Master. Here are four-fifths of Protestant Christendom, exhibiting as many of the solid fruits of grace as any body of men in the world, doing nearly all that is done for man's redemption, and sending up to heaven a constant harvest of ransomed souls. Yet are they not churches or ministers, at all : Why ? Only because they have not used quite enough water in the outward form of an ordinance ! What greater out- rage on common sense, Christian charity, and the spirituality of Christ's visible Church was ever committed by the bigotry of prelacy or popery ? The just mind replies to such a dogma, not only with a firm negative, but with the righteous indignation of an " incrcdiilus odi." When we remember, that this ex- treme high-churchism is enacted by a sect, which calls itself em- inently spiritual, free and Protestant, the solecism becomes more repulsive. Only a part of the Immersionists have the nerve to assert this consequence. But their dogma involves it ; and it is justly pressed on all.

Your acquaintance with Church history has taught you the ^ . . ,, , tenour of the usual representations of the an-

l^. Patnshc Modes. ,. • . i • ,i , r i -•

tiquanes, touchmg the mode of baptism m the patristic Churches. The usual version is, that in the second and third centuries the commonest mode of baptism was by a trine immersion, accompanied with a number of superstitious rites, of crossing, anointing, laying on hands, tasting honey and salt, clothing in a ^yhite garment, exorcism, &c. There are sev- eral reasons why we do not consider this testimony of any importance.

First, the New Testament mode was evidently different, in most cases at least; and we do not feel bound by mere human authority (even though within a hundred and fifty years of the Apostles; a lapse of time within which great apostasies have often been matured). Second, we do not see how Immersion- ists can consistently claim this patristic precedent for dipping, as of authority, and refuse authority to all their other precedents for the human fooleries which so uniformly attended their baptisms. And farther, the many other corruptions of doctrine and gov- ernment which were at the same time spread in the Church, prove the fathers to be wretched examples of the New Testament re- ligion. Third, the usage was not as uniformly by immersion, as the antiquaries usually say. Thus, Cyprian teaches us (among many others) that clinic baptism was usually by pouring or

7/^5 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sprinkling, in the third century ; yet it was never regarded as therefore less valid ; and that father speaks, with a tone nigh akin to contempt of the notion that its virtue was any less, be- cause less water was used. Again, Dr. Robinson teaches us, that the early baptisms could not have uniformly been by im- mersion ; because some baptismal urns of stone are still pre- served, entirely too small to receive the applicant's whole per- son. And several monumental remains of great authenticity and antiquity show us baptisms actually by affusion, as that of the Emperor Constantine. Again, Mr. Taylor, in his Apostolic baptism, shows us very strong reasons to believe that the im- mersion of the whole body was not the sacrament of baptism, but a human addition and preliminary thereto. For instance, the connection of deaconesses with the baptizing of women, mentioned by not a few, is thus explained : That an immersion and actual washing /;/ puvis natiiralibufi, being supposed essential before baptism ; the young women to be baptized were taken into the part of the baptistery where the pool was, and there, with closed doors, washed by the deaconesses ; for no male clergyman could assist here, compatibly with decency. And that after this, the candidates, dressed in their white garments, were presented to the presbyter, at the door of the Church, and received the actual baptism, by affusion, from him. This view of the dis- tinction iDetween the washing and the sacrament is also sup- ported by what modern travelers observe, concerning the rite among some of the old, petriiied, Oriential Churches.

These remarks are designed not for a full discussion : but to suggest the topics for your examination.

In conclusion of the subject of the Mode of Baptism,

„ . , . let us review the positions successiveh^ estab-

Recapitulation. tij- i. t.jj-

^ lished m a somewhat complicated discussion.

I. Having pointed out the superior importance of Hebraistic Greek usage, over the Classic, in determining this question, we separate the usage of the family of words expressing baptism into two questions ; their meaning when expressive of common, secular washings, in either Classic or Hebraistic Greek, and their meaning when expressive of religious, or ritual washings.

n. We show that all common words applied to describe re- ligious rituals, ipso facto, undergo some modification of signifi- cation. And hence, even if it could be shown that the family of words always mean nothing but dip, in common secular wash- ings, it would not be therefore proved of baptism. But

HI. The family of words do not always mean exclusive dipping, either in Classic or Hebraistic Greek, when expressive of common washings.

IV. Nor do they mean exclusive dipping, when applied to describe religious rituals other than the sacrament of Baptism, either in the Old Testament Greek, or in Josephus, or in the New Testament.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. J'J'J

V. Nor, to come still nearer, is its proper sacramental meaning in the New Testament exclusive dipping ; as we prove, by its symbolical meaning: From the analogy of figurative baptisms : From the actual attendant circumstances of the in- stances of the sacrament in the New Testament ; And from the absurd consequences of the dogma. I commend Fairchild on Baptism, as a manual of this discussion remarkably compact, perspicuous, and comprehensive. I regard it as eminently adapted to circulation among our pastoral charges.

SYLLABUS

1. Who are proper subjects of Christian Baptism, and on what terms ?

Jo. Edwards. Qualific. for Communion. Mason on the Church, Essay i and V. Neander. Cli. Hist, on the Novatian and Donatist Schisms.

2. Meet the objection, that the nature of Baptism renders it necessarily inappro- priate to infants, because they cannot believe. Review of Th. Ernest.

Dr. L. Woods' Lect. iii, 117, or Woods on Infant Baptism. Fairchild on Baptism. Armstrong on Baptism, pt. iii, ch. 3, Ridgley, Qu. 165. Note. Calv. bk. iv, ch. 16.

3. Argue infant-baptism from infant church-membership.

Mason on the Church, Essays ii, iv. Woods' Lect. iii, H2. Armstrong, pt. iii, ch. 4, 5. Calvin, bk. iv, ch. 16. Turrettin, Loc. .xix, Qu. 20. Ridgley, Qu. 166.

4. What would have been the natural objections raised by the Jews, to Christianity had it excluded infants ?

Mason on the Church, Essay v.

5. State the argument for infant-baptism from the Great Commission. Matt, xxviii : 19, 20 ; Mark xvi : 15, 16 ; Luke xxiv : 47, &c.

Armstrong, pt. iii, chs. 2, 6. Woods' Lect. 113, &c. See on whole. Rev. of Theo. Ernest, chs. 4-6.

A LL adults who make an intelligent and credible profession "^^ of faith on Jesus Christ are to be baptized on their own

application ; and no other adults. The evi- to be Baptized. '^''"^'' dence of the last assertion is in Acts ii:4i,

47 ; X : 47, with xi : 15, 16, and viii : 12, 37. The genuineness of the last text is indeed grievously questioned by the critical editors, except Knapp ; but even if spurious, its early and general introduction gives us an information of the ■clear conviction of the Church on this subject. Last: the truths signified by baptism, are such that it is obviously inap- propriate to all adults but those who are true believers, in the judgment of charity.

We add that baptism is also to be administered to " the

infants of one or both believing parents." be'^a^tiSl"'""'''' (Conf 28, § 4). The great question here

raised will be the main subject of this and a

']'/% SYLLABUS AND NOTES

subsequent lecture. But a related question is still agitated among Paedobaptists themselves, whether one or both of the parents must be believers, or only decent baptized members of the Church. Papists baptize the children of all baptized per- sons, and Episcopalians, Methodists, and not a few of the Pres- byterian family of Churches, baptize those of all decent bap- tized persons. They plead the Church-membership of the parents, the example of the Jewish Church as to circumcision, and a kindly, liberal policy as to parents and infants. We object : first the express language of our Standards, Conf. of Faith xxviii : 4; Larger Cat. Qu. 166. " Infants of one or both believing parents," •* professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him." Second : The language of i Cor. vii : 14, where it is not the baptized, but the "believing" parent, who sanctifies the unbelieving. Third : Those baptized, but unbelieving parents are Church members, subject to its guardianship and discipline ; but they are not full members. They are ecclesiastical minors, cut off by their own guilty lack of spiritual qualification from all the spiritual privileges, and sealing ordinances. Fourth : Chiefly because it is preposterous that those who make no con- secration of their own souls to Christ, and do not pretend to govern themselves by His laws, should profess to consecrate the souls of their children, and rear them to God. If then, it be urged that the children ought not to be deprived of their ecclesiastial privilege, because of the impenitence of the par- ents ; I reply. Perfectly true : There is a great and cruel wrong committed on the little ones. But it is their own parents who commit it: not the Church authorities. They cannot repair that wrong, by giving them the shell of a sacrament which their parents' unbelief makes perfectly empty. This is no remed}^ ; and it only violates Scripture, and introduces disorder. This will be greatly strengthened, when we show that Infant Baptism is a sacrament to the parents also.

Under the old Covenant the children of all circumcised persons were circumcised ? True. But St. Paul has changed it; because, as we surmise, ours is a more spiritual dispensation, no State-Church separation exists from the world : and all un- believers are spiritually "aliens."

Under the Jewish Church the children of mixed marriages were out of the Church, until they came in through the gate of proselytism. Neh. xiii : 23-28. But under the New Testa- ment, if one parent is a credible believer, the child is within the Covenant. Our grounds are i Cor. vii : 14, and the circum- cision and baptism of Timothy. Acts xvi : 3.

Before we proceed to the main point of debate, it will be

2, Immersionists Well to remove out of the way the objection

Object ; Infants Can- on which Immersionists place the main reli-

e leve. ance. They urge that since infants cannot

exercise the graces signified and sealed in baptism, (See Cate-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 779

chism, Qu. 94), it is useless and preposterous to administer it to babies. Take, say they, Mark xvi : 15, 16, as a specimen of the many passages in which it is categorically said, or clearly implied, that one must believe, before it is proper to baptize him. Hence the administration of the rite to infants is a prac- tical falsehood, and if unauthorized by God, even profane. What, they ask, can all your inferential arguments for infant Church-membership be worth, when the express words of Scrip- ture prove that infants cannot have the necessary qualifications for baptism ?

We reply, this plausible statement proceeds on the usual fallacy of taking the speaker's words in a nswers, sense in which he did not mean them to be

applied. In Mark xvi : 16, for instance, Christ was not speaking either of the terms of infant salvation, or of the terms on which they could become Church-members. Let the reader remem- ber that the temporary commission to the apostles and seventy (Matt. X : 5) had already made them familiar with the fact that Christ's dispensation was to be preached to Jews. But now, in Mark xvi : 15, it is extended "to all the world," and to "every creature." These were the features of the new commission prominent to our Saviour's mind, and the disciples' attention. The terms on which Jewish families should be admitted were already familiar. The question was, how shall those be ad- mitted who are now aliens ? Why ; on their faith. The evi- dence that infants were not here intended to be excluded from baptism by our Saviour's scope is absolutely demonstrative : for the Immersionist interpretation would equally make the pas- sage prove that infants can neither be baptized, nor be saved, because they are incapable of faith ; and it would equally make it prove that the salvation of infants is dependent on their bap- tism ! We may find many other illustrations of the absurdity of such interpretations ; as, for instance, in 2 Thess. iii : 10 : " If any one {sc zc:) will not work, neither shall he eat." A similar reasoning would prove that infants should be starved.

Further : it does not follow that because infants cannot Infants Can be in Gxercise intelligent graces, therefore there is the Covenant, so May no sense nor reason in administering to them Have Its Seals. sacraments significant thereof. Infants are

capable of redemption. Glorious truth! Why, then, should it appear a thing incredible that they should partake of the sac- raments of redemption ? Baptism signifies God's covenant with souls, as well as their covenant with Him. Can there be no meaning in a pledge of God's covenant-favour applied to an infant, because the infant does not yet apprehend it ? No sense at all; because it has no sense to him? Strange reasoning! But human suppositions are a bad test of what God may or may not think reasonable. To the Word and the Testimony! There we find two cases in which religious ordinances were

780 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

applied to " unconscious babies." In Matt, xix : 14, Mark X : 14 ; Luke xviii : 16, our Saviour took up little children [^[jicfr^) into His arms, and blessed them, because they were Church members. Did they comprehend the blessing? The other case is that of circumcision, and it is peculiarly strong, because it was emblematic of the same spiritual exercises and graces, nov/ signified by baptism. See Rom. ii : 28, 29 ; iv: 11 ; Col. ii: 11 ; Deut. XXX : 6 ; ix : 16 ; Phil, iii : 3. Yet circumcision was, by God's command, applied to all the infant males of God's people ! Let the Immersionist, therefore, go and turn all the confident denun- ciation of " baby-sprinkling," against this parallel ordinance of God. We entrench ourselves behind it.

Once more : So far as the child himself is concerned,

there is no absurdity in giving him the seal bJcerSe'p"":!''"' in advance of his fulfillment of the con-

ditions. Are not seals often appended to promissor}^ covenants ? Yea, every covenant is in its nature promissory, including something to be done, as a condition of the bestowment. This is so of adult baptism. But, they say, the adult can be a party ; infants not. I answer : parents are, and the efficacy of the parental relation, properly sanctified, is regular enough to justify this arrangement. Where, then, is the practical objection, so far as the infant's own subsequent edification is concerned, of his receiving the seal beforehand, so that he may ever after have the knowledge of that fact, with all its solemn meaning, and see it re-enacted in every infant baptism he afterward witnesses ? But, above all, remem- ber that the infant is not the only party, on man's side, to the sacrament. Infant baptism is a sacrament to the parent, as well as the child. It consecrates the relation of filiation, or parentage, and thus touches both the parties to the relation equally. The parent has momentous duties to perform, for God's glory ; and momentous religious responsibilities, as to the soul of the child, which duties are also represented and pledged in this sacrament, as well as God's promised aid and blessing in their performance. Infant baptism is a sacrament to the parent as much as to the child. Now, whatever of warn- ing, instruction, comfort, edification, the sacrament was intended to convey to the parent, to fit him better for his charge as the educator of the child for eternity; when should the parent receive that equipment? When does the moral education of the infant's soul begin? It begins just so soon as the forma- tion of habit begins ; so soon as petulance, anger, selfishness, can be exhibited by an infant ; so soon as it can apprehend the light of a mother's smile beaming upon it as it- hangs upon her breast ; as soon as it can know to tremble at her frown. Here, then, is the great practical reason, which makes God's wisdom clear even to man's reason, in instituting the seal of Church membership at the dawn of life.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Col. ii: 11

OF LECTURES IX THEOLOGY. ' 7S1

We proceed now to advance the positive evidences toi^- 3. Argument from infant baptism. Of these, the most sohd Infant Membership in and Comprehensive is that from infant

Old Testament and Church-membership in the New Testament New. Major Premise. ^-^1 ■, ^p, . . ^

■' Church, ihe major premise of our argu-

ment is, that baptism is, in all cases, the proper rite by which to recognize membership in the visible Church. The minor pre- 'mise is, the infants of believing parents are members of the visible Church of Christ. Hence, the conclusion : such infants are proper subjects of baptism.

On the major premise there will probably be little dispute between us and Immersionists. In the great commission, we are taught that discipleship is formally constituted by baptism (Matt, xxviii : 19). In Acts ii : 41, language is used which plainly shows that the baptism of the three thousand was equivalent to their being added to the Church. In i Cor. xii : 13, the spiritual engrafting of true believers by the Holy Ghost into the spiritual body of Christ, the invisible Church, is called a baptism ; in evident allusion to the effect of that rite in intro- ducing to the visible Church.

The minor premise leads us to consider the origin and

constitution of the Church. Having found

Minor Premise, jj^ ^i^g Qld Testament a visible Church-

Church Formed Under

Abraham. State, called hrO and rn^^, and character-

ized by every mark of a Church, we trace that society up the stream of sacred history, until we find its institution (or re-insti- tution) in the family of Abraham, and in that gospel and eccle- siastical covenant ratified with him in Genesis, ch. xvii. The patriarchal form was most naturally superinduced on this Church then; because it was the only organized form, with which man had hitherto been familiar, and the one best suited to that state of the world. The society there organized was set apart to the service and worship of God. It was organized under ecclesiastical rulers. It had the Word and gospel of God. It had its sacrament and other sacred rites. No one will dispute the continuity of this society under Moses and his successors ; for the covenant of Horeb manifestly developed, ,it did not destroy, the body.

But can the same thing be said of the visible Church cath- , olic which has existed since Christ, under the

Nevv'Teslament. " ^'^ organization given it by the Apostles ? The Reformed Churches answer, Yes. This is substantially the same with the Church of the Old Testament. The change of dispensation is the change of outward form, not of its substance or nature. This is proved, (a) By the fact- that the repeal of God's Church-covenant with Abraham and his family is nowhere stated. The abrogation of the Mosaic economy does not destroy the old body, because that economy

782 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

did not introduce it. The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul the covenant made with Abraham. Gal. iii : 17.

(a) The Apostles and Christ, by their acts and sayings,

recognize the existence of a visible Church, notDeSroyi?""''"^' ^^'^i^h they do not abolish, but reform, and

increase. Observe in how many instances, particular churches were but synagogues Christianized. Con- sider also, how those traits of order and ritual which are dis- tinctive of the new dispensation, were made to overlap those which marked the old. The substitution of the former for the latter was gradual. St. Paul observed the passover after he began to keep the Lord's Supper; he circumcised Timothy after he began to baptize Gentiles. There is no sudden cutting off of the old, but a gradual " sphcing " of the new on it.

(b) The Apostle expressly .teaches that Gentile converts, „ ^, p , ., coming to Christ by faith, are under the

terms ot the Abrahamic covenant. There- fore that covenant is not abolished. They are " the seed ;" they are the "children of Abraham." They are "the true Israel.'' Rom. iv : 12-17; Matt, iii : 9; Gal. iii : 7. Indeed, the " seed," to whom the promises were made, never was, at any time, strictly coincident with the lineal descendants of Abraham. Ishmael, Keturah's children, Esau, though circum- cised, were no part of it. Every heathen proselyte was. See Gen. xvii : 12, 13 ; Exod. xii : 48 ; Deut. xxiii : 8. Gentiles were always, as truly (not as numerously) as now, a part of this seed.

(c) The correlative promises that " all nations should be Promises to it Only b^essed in Abraham," and that he should be

Fulfilled Under New " Father of many nations," were only ful- Testament. filled as the Gentiles were made members of

the Abrahamic body. See Rom. iv : 16, 17. It cannot be said that Abraham's paternity of the twelve tribes exhausted that promise, for Israel was but one nation. If, then, the Abra- hamic Church expired before the Gentiles were brought in, this promise was never fulfilled. It will not help the cause to say that Abraham was father of these believers, in the sense of being their first exemplar. He was not. Noah, Enoch, Abel, probably Adam, were before him. The relationship is that of the head and founder of an organization, to the subsequent members of it. Nor will it be said, that the Gentiles becoming "Abraham's seed " only means their admission into the invisi- ble Church, into which Abraham's faith admitted him. This is, indeed, a higher sequel to the privilege, as to all true believers, but not the whole of it. We have proved that the covenant was not purely spiritual, but also an ecclesiastical, visible Church covenant. Therefore the seed, or children of the cov^- enant (see Acts iii : 25) are also thereby brought into the visi- ble Church relationship.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 783

(d) The number of Old Testament promises to the visible Church, some of which were unfulfilled at the end of the old dispensation, must imply that the community is still in exist- ence to receive their fulfillment. Otherwise God has failed. See, then, Isa. ii : 2, 3 ; liv : 1-5, xlix : 14-23 ; Ps. ii : 6, 8. It cannot be said that the invisible Church is the sole object of these promises.

(e) Last. The figure of Rom. xi : 17 to 24, plainly implies

that the Old Testament visible Church is . continued under the new dispensation. The good olive tree was not uprooted, but pruned, and new branches grafted in. And at last, the exscinded branches are to be regrafted " into their own olive tree." The argument is too clear and strong to need many words.

Thus, our minor premise is established. The ecclesias- Inference. Con- tical Covenant made with Abraham still firmed by all Provi- subsists unrepealed, and all Christians are ^^^^^^- brought under it. As children were members

of that covenant, the inference is irresistible that they are members still, unless their positive exclusion can be pointed out in the New Testament. This inference is also greatly for- tified, by showing that all God's general dispensations toward the human family have embraced the children along with the parents. In the Covenant of Works with Adam : in the curse for its breach : in the covenant with Noah : in the curse on Sodom : in the doom of the Canaanites and Amelekites : in the constitution of society and course of Providence in all ages : in the political commonwealths ordained by Him : in all these, the infant children go with the parents. Were the visi- ble Church different, it would be a strange anomaly.

Again: Malachi tells us (ii : 15) that God's object in con- stituting the marriage relation and family as it is, was " to seek a godly seed ;" i. e., to provide for the Christian rearing of the offspring. Now, this is the Church's object. Would it not be strange if the visible Church failed to embrace and consecrate the family institution as a subdivision of itself? Third : The affection, authority, and influence of parents are so unique, that when we properly consider them, it seems incredible God would have omitted them as parts of His Church instrumentalities, subject to the sanctifying rules of His house. Parental love is the strongest of the instinctive affections, and the most god- like in its permanence, forbearance, and disinterestedness. Pa- rental authority is the most remarkable and absolute one dele- gated by God to man over his fellow man. Consider : it author- izes the parent to govern the child for a fourth of his life as a slave ; to decide virtually his intelligence, culture, and social destiny, and even to elect for him a character and religious creed ; thus seeming almost to infringe the inalienable responsi- bilities and liberties of the immortal soul ! And last : the

784 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

parental influence is so efficacious, especially in things moral and religious, that it does more than all others to decide the child's everlasting fate. Can it be that God would omit such a lever as this, in constructing His Church, as the organism for man's moral and religious welfare ? Fourth : The Church-mem- bership of children seems to be implied in that duty which all right-minded Christians instinctively exercise, of caring for the welfare and salvation of the children of the brotherhood. Fifth : It follo'vs from the declared identity of circumcision and baptism, and from many express Scriptures. See Col. ii: 11,12,13; Matt, xix : 13-15 ; Acts ii : 38, 39 ; i Cor. vii : 14. The Church membership of infants having been thus established, the pro- priety of their baptism follows. Indeed, immersionists virtually admit that if the second premise is true, the conclusion must follow, by denying the Church-membership of infants under the New Testament.

IMany evasions of this argument are attempted. Immer- Visible Church in Old sionists deny that there was any visible Testament Denied by Church-State appointed for saints in the Immersionists. Answer, qm Testament ! This is a striking, and at once a mournful, proof of the stringency of my argument, that a body of evangelical Christians claiming especial scriptural- ness and orthodoxy, should be forced, in resisting it, to adopt one of the most monstrous assertions of those flagrant heretics and fanatics, the Anabaptists and Socinians. You have only to notice how expressly it contradicts the Scriptures, Acts vii : 38 ; Rom. xi : 24 ; Heb. iii : 5,6: How it defies the plainest facts of the Old Testament history, which shows us God giving His people every possible feature of a visible Church-State ; gospel, ministry, sacraments, other ordinances, Sabbath, discipline, sanctuaries, &c. : How utterly it confounds all relations between the old and new dispensations : And how preposterously it represents Christ's own personal life, observances, and obedi- ence, including especially His baptism by John, an Old Testa- ment prophet, administering his rite in this Old Testament No- Church ; which rite is, according to immersionists, still the Christian sacrament !

Some of them assert that the argument, if good for any- Objected that the thing, would equally make all adult unbeliev- Argument Proves Too ing children of believing parents, and all un- Much. Answer. believing domestic slaves, Church members.

Is no force to be allowed to the passing away of the patri- archal state, with the almost absolute authority of the father? None to the growing spirituality of the New Covenant? None to the express change in these features by apostolic authority, as is manifested in their precedents ? Still, all that could be made of this argument would be to prove, not that the reason- ing of Pedobaptists is unsound, but that their conduct may be inconsistent.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 785

Sometimes it is objected that if infants were really made members of the visible Church, then, as they grow up, they must be admitted, without question, to all the privileges of membership, to suffrage, to office, to the Lord's supper. I reply that there is no commonwealth on earth, where mere citizenship entitles to all the higher franchises. In the State, all citizens are entitled to protection, and subject to jurisdiction. But all cannot vote and bear office. Christ's ecclesiastical common- wealth is a school, a place for teaching and training. To be a member of the school does not at once imply that one must share all its powers and privileges. The scholars are j^romoted according to their qualifications.

It is objected by some : If Peter and his brethren were in the visible Church, how comes it that olT±fwold)^°'"" Christ says to them : " I have chosen you out of the world ?" Jno. xv : 19. I answer : Cannot that which is worldly, in the true sense, be in the visible Church? The objection begs the question. The very point in debate is, whether the Anabaptist definition of the visible Church, as a body containing only regenerate persons, is true. The Bible says that it is not : that Peter was yet worldly, while regularly in the visible Church, and was, out of that state chosen by Christ to the apostleship, and to effectual calling.

One more objection may be noted : If the visible Church

of the Old and New Testaments is one, then

. ^^y y^^f J?,^^ ^^P" circumcision and baptism are alike the initia- tized II in the Church : ^ . ,

tory rites. How came it then, that Jews, already regularly in it, were re-admitted by baptism ? I reply first. It is not so certain that they were. Note, that we do not believe John's baptism to have been the Christian sacrament. But who can prove that the Twelve, and the Seventy were ever baptized again ? As for the Jews after Pentecost, who certainly did receive Christian baptism, they were now, (after Christ's definite rejection, crucifixion, and ascension) "broken off for their unbelief;" and needed re-admittance on their repentance. But second, where is the anomaly of re-administering the initia- tory rite to members already in the Society, at the season of the marked change of outward form, when it was receiving a large class of new members ? I see nothing strange in the fact, that the old citizens took their oath of allegiance over again, along with the new.

Immersionists delight to urge, that as baptism is a positive

institution, no Protestant should administer

w"^' ^1 ^^''' Testament j^. ^^ infants, because the New Testament

Warrant Kequired. . ... - , .

contains no explicit warrant lor doing so. I shall show that the tables can be turned on this point.

When a society undergoes important modifications, its sub-

50*

786 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

stantial identity yet remaining, the fair pre- th?lmmer°sLnisTs!°°^°'' sumption is, that all those things are intended to remain unchanged, about the change of which nothing is said. We may illustrate from citizenship in a Commonwealth, changing its constitution. So, if there were not one word in all the New Testament, indicating the continu- ance of infant Church-membership, the silence of Scripture constitutes no disproof; and the burden of proof would rest on the Immersionist. And this burden he would have to assume against every antecedent probability. True, the cessation of the Mosaic dispensation was accompanied with great changes ; but infant membership and circumcision never were merely Mosaic. We may say of them, as of the Covenant to which they belonged, as St. Paul says in Gal. iii : 17. All that was typical, passed away, because of the coming of the Antitype : circumcision and infant membership never were types. Again, infant membership was esteemed by Jews a privilege. We understand that the new dispensation is an extension of the old one, more liberal in its provisions, and its grace : and embracing the whole human family. It would be a strange thing indeed, if this era of new liberality and breadth were the occasion for a new and vast restriction, excluding a large class of the human family, in whom the pious heart is most tenderly interested. Consider this in the light of the Apostle's language : e. g., in Rom. xi : 20 ; Acts iii : 23. In these and similar passages, the Jews are warned that unbelief of Christ, the great closing Prophet of the line, (like resistance of previous Theocratic Mes- sengers,) will be accpmpanied with loss of their church member- ship. According to Immersionists, the meaning of this warning would be : " Oh, Jew ; if you believe not on Jesus Christ, you (and your children) jforfeit your much valued visible Church membership. But if you believe on Him, then your innocent children shall be punished for your obedience, by losing their privileges !"

Further, no Immersionist is consistent, in demanding an

What New Testament ^xpress New Testament warrant in words. Warrant for Close Com- for all his ordinances. There is not an intelli- munion, &c. ^^^^ Protestant in the world, who does not

hold that what follows from the express Word, " by good and necessary consequence," is binding, as well as the Word itself. What other warrant have Immersionists for observing the Lord's day as a Christian Sabbath, and neglecting the seventh day? What warrant for admitting females to the Lord's table ? What warrant for their favourite usage of strict commu- nion ? This, pre-eminently, is only a deduction.

The presumption against the Immersionist is greatly

No Clamour, such as Strengthened again, in my view, by the ex- Must have Arisen at Ex- treme improbability, that the sweeping revo- dusion of Infants. i^^^^^ against infant Church membersliip

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 78/

could have been ^established by the Apostles, without some such clamour as would have been mentioned in the New Testa- ment. We must remember that all Hebrews greatly prized their ecclesiastical birth. See Matt, iii : 9 ; Jno. viii : 33. To be cut off from among his people, was to the Jew, a shameful and dreaded degradation. The uncircumcised was a dog to him, unclean and despised. We have evidence enough that the believing Hebrews shared these feelings. Hence, when we saw that even believers among them were so suspicious, and the unbelievers full of rampant jealousy, and eager to object and revile the Nazarenes, how is it possible that this great abro- gation of privilege could be established, while we hear none of that clamour which, the New Testament tells us, was provoked hy the cessation of sacrifice, purifications, and circumcision ?

But the Immersionist may rejoin : such a clamour may have existed, and it may be omitted in the sacred Arguel''''^'''^^^'"'°''' history, because the history is brief, and the purposes of inspiration may not have re- quired its notice. One is not entitled to argue from the absence of proof De omni ignoto qiiasi de noii existentibiis.

I reply : we are not arguing herein from the mere absence of proof; for we give high probable evidence to show that if the fact had ever occurred, the traces of it must have been pre- served. First : Not only is there a dead silence in the brief narrative of Scripture concerning any objection of Jews, such as must have been made had infant membership been abro- gated ; but there seems to be an equal silence in the Rabbinical literature against Christianity, and in the voluminous polemical works, from the days of Justin Martyr — adversus TrypJionem, down. Second : The objections, restiveness, and attacks grow- ing out of the revolutionizing of other things, less important than infant membership, required and received full notice in the New Testament. Look for instance, at the Epistle to the He- brews, written practically with this main object ; to obviate the restiveness and tendency to revolt produced among Jewish Christians, by the abrogation of cherished customs. The main line of argument is to show that these innovations are justifiable, and scriptural ; yet there is not one word to excuse this momen- tous innovation against infant membership ! Third : The sacred narrative in Acts xvth approaches so near the topic of this innovation, that it is simply incredible an allusion to it should have been avoided, had the revolution been attempted. The question which agitated the whole Christian community to its core was : shall Gentile converts, entering the Church under the new dispensation, be required to be circumcised, and keep the ceremonial law ? The very arguments by which this ques- tion was debated are given. Now, how inevitable would it have been, had the change in membership been made, which the Immersionist supposes, to say : " Whether you circumcise

788 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

adult Gentile converts, or not ; you cannot circumcise their children ; because Jewish children and Gentile, are no longer admitted with their parents." But there is no whisper of this point raised. I cannot believe the innovation had been attempted. But if it had not been made at that stage, it was never made at all by divine authority ; for the Immersionist professes to find it in Christ's commission at His ascension.

Paedobaptist writers are accustomed to attach importance

to that great Commission. See Matt, xxviii :

T 5- Great Commission ^o : Mark xvi : K, 16 ; Luke xxiv : 47-

Implies PEedo-Baptism. , 11 • 1 ^ (

49. As we have already considered the

supposed evidence for exclusive believer's baptism in Mark xvi :

16, we may take the language of Matthew as most explicit and

full, of the three places. We consider that the Apostles would

naturally have understood such a commission to include infants,

for the following reasons :

The first thing told them is to go, and " teach" more prop- erly, " disciple" {/j-afh^Tsuaazi) all nations. Here, says the Im- mersionist, is strong evidence that only believer's baptism is enjoined, because they are to be taught first, and then baptized ; whereas infants cannot be taught. The argument is unfortu- nately founded only on a failure to examine the original. For this turns it against the Immersionist. The term " disciple," is eminently appropriate to the conception of a school of Christ, which is one of the Bible conceptions of the Church. See Gen. xviii : 19 ; Deut. vi : 7 ; Is. ii : 3, &c. The young child is entered or enrolled at this school, before his religious education begins, in order that he may learn afterwards. Matt, xxviii : 20.

Second : what would a mind free from immersionist pre- conceptions naturally understand by the command to " disciple all nations ?" Does not this include the infant children, as a part thereof? But we must remember, that the minds ot the disciples were not only free from these prejudices, but accus- tomed to the Church-membership of infants. They had known nothing else but a Church-State in which the children went along with their parents. It seems then, that they would almost inevi- tably understand such a command, as including the authority to baptire infants, unless instructed to the contrary. Nor is this all : these disciples were accustomed to see cases of disciple- ship to Judaism occurring from time to time. Proselytes were not unusual. See Matt, xxiii : 15 ; Acts vi : 5 ; ii : 10 ; xiii : 43, and the uniform custom was to circumcise the children and receive them into the Jewish community, on the profession of the father. So that, if we set aside for the present, the question whether proselyte baptism was as yet practiced, it is clear the Apostles must be led by all they had been accustomed to wit- ness, to suppose that their converts were to bring in their chil- dren along with them ; unless the notion were contradicted by Christ. Where is the contradiction of it?

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Col. ii: 11

SYLLABUS

6. What weight is to be attached to the prevalence of Proselyte Baptism among the Jews, as evidence for infant baptism ?

See Dr. L. Woods' Lect. 112. Knapp's Christian Theol. ^ 138. Wall's Hist. Infant Bap. Jahn's Archaeology, § 325.

7. State the argument for infant baptism from the baptism of houses. Armstrong, pt. iii, ch. 8. Dr. Woods'. Lect. 114. Taylor's Apostol, Bap. pp. 28 to 68.

8. Argue infant baptism from the titles and treatment addressed to Christian chil- dren in the New Testament.

See Annstrong, pt. iii, ch. 7. Woods' Lect. 115, pt. i. Taylor, A post. Bapt. pp. ICHD-112.

9. What historical evidence can be. given for the prevalence of infant baptism from the Apostles' days downward ?

Woods' Lect. 116. Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemphfied, ch. 19, §6. Bingham's Origines Sacris. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap.

10. Refute the objection that infant baptism corrupts the spirituality of the Church by introducing unsanctified members.

Woods Lect. 117. Mason on the Church, Essays 6 and 7.

11. What the relations of baptized children to the Church, and what the practical benefits thereof?

Drs. Woods' and Mason, as above. So. Presbn. Rev. April 1859.

TT has been fashionable of late years for learned Paedobaptists (e. g., Dr. J. A. Alexander) to doubt whether the Jews prac- 6. Aro-ument from ticed proselyte family baptism as early as the Proselyte Baptism of Christian era ; because, they say, it was first J^^^- asserted in the Talmud (of 6th century) and

these writers are unscrupulous. I see not why we may not in this case believe, because they are supported thus : (see Dr. Woods). They uniformly assert the antiquity of the usage. The usage is naturally deducible from Levitical purifications. It accounts for John's baptism being received with such facility, while neither in the New Testament, nor in Josephus, is any surprise expressed at his baptizing as a novelty. Jews certainly did practise proselyte baptism at a later day, and it can hardly be supposed that they borrowed it from the hated Christians. If they even did, it proves a prevalence of usage before they borrowed. Last : it does not seem very likely that such a pre- tence, if first invented in the Talmud, would have escaped denial by some earlier Christian or Jewish Christian.

Now, if apostles were accustomed to see families baptized into Judaism, it was very likely that they would understand the command to go and proselyte all peoples to Christianity and baptize them, as including whole families.

Had the English version been accurate in the employment

of the words house or/.o^ household or/J.a,

Baptis^'fTlSusS'.''"' our argument on this point would appear in

it more just. According to the definition of

789

790 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Aristotle, and well-defined classic and Hebraistic usage, the word oc'y.o^ means literally, the apartments inhabited by the parents and children, and ocxca, literally, the curtilage. Figu- ratively, the former, the family; the latter, the houshold. And the idea which constitutes the former a house is lineage. It is by birth of infants the house is built up ; so that the word may more naturally mean young children distinguished from parents than vice 've7'sa. A house is a cluster of one lineage, receiving accretion by birth and growth of children. So that when it is said in the New Testament that the ouoz was baptized (never the or/Ja), the presence of children is forcibly implied. This distinction in usage is always carefully observed in the New Testament as to the figurative sense of the two words, often as to the literal. E. g.. Acts xvi : 31-34 (Greek); i Cor. i : 16,. with xvi: 15; Phil, iv: 22. The argument is miserably ob- scured in the English version. Now, while some eight Chris- tian houses are spoken of in the New Testament (who presum- ably were baptized houses), four such are explicitly mentioned as baptized. Cornelius', Acts x : 2, 44,48; Lydia's, xvi: 15;. the Philippian jailor's, xvi : 33 ; Stephanas', i Cor. i : 16. Now, on the fact that, among the very few separate individual bap- tisms mentioned in the New Testament, four were of families, is ground of two-fold probability : that there were young chil- dren in some of them, who were baptized on their parents' faith, and that this sacramental recognition of the parental and fam- ily relation, looks like Pedobaptism amazingly. Immersionists do not use such language , so that even if it could be proved there probably were no young unconverted children, the argu- ment remains.

They say they can prove in each case there were none : Cornelius' by verses 2, 44. But see Gen. e^ChuSr" '"'''" xviii:i9; 2 Chron. xx:i3; Ezra viii:2i; Matt, xxi : 15, 16. That Lydia's house were all believing adult children, or servants, or apprentices, they argue from Acts xvi: 40, "brethren." But see verses 14, 15,. nobody's faith is mentioned but Lydia's; and doubtless Paul had many other converts out of Lydia's house. The proof is, that the whole context shows the meeting in verse 40 was a public one, not a family one ; and the Philippian church, a flourishing body was now planted.

That the jailor's family all believed is argued from verse 34. But the original places the Tzauor/J. with rejoiced. That Stephanas' family were all baptized and believers, is argued from I Cor. xvi: 15. Answer: It was his nr/.ta not his or/.oz which engaged in ministrations of Christian hospitality.

An argument of equal, or perhaps greater importance is to

8. Infants are Ad- be derived from the addressing of the titles

dressed as Church- of Church-members to little children in the

members. ^^^ Testament. That the words "Artoc,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 79 1

TTca-o:;, or 7::(TTiucova.nd\4dc?.(f 6^ are the current words employed to denote professed Christians, will not be denied. " Chris- tians " is only used two or three times. The address of epis- tles to these titles is equivalent to their address to professed Church-members. Now in these cases we find children ad- dressed in the epistles. Eph. vi:i-4; Col. iii : 20 ; 1 John ii: 12, 13, Tsxvia, -acoia. First, these were not adult children, Further, in Titus 1:5, they are expressly called rexvamard.

The Bishop's Chil- Compare for illustration, in i Tim. vi : 2, dren Must be Mem- IlcaTolx; deoTiozac, and I Tim. iii : 4, parallel ^^^^- passage where the Bishop's children being

TLcara and ev u7:o~a)'yj, is equivalent to being well ruled, and in subjection. If the alternative be taken that Titus' zt/.ua T.taxa mean adult children who are professors, on their own behalf, of godliness, we are led into absurdities; for what must be de- cided of the man whose children are yet small ; and who being therefore in the prime of manhood, is fit to serve the Church ? Shall he wait, though otherwise fit, till it be seen whether his children will be converted ? Or if the children be already come to ages of intelligence, and not converted, in spite of the Father's good rearing, must he be refused ordination ? This would have excluded Legh Richmond, and many ministers blessed of God. The obvious sense is, the bishop's children must be consecrated and reared accordingly.

As the historical evidence for the early and constant prev-

9. Authorities on Pa- ^lence of infant baptism is so well unfolded tristic Baptism. Re- in Coleman, Woods, Bingham and Wall, and mari^s^ 1st. Infant Bap- as your Church History enters fully into it, I tism Larly Mentioned. in , • i . -i /i -^ i , i i

shall not agam detail the witnesses ; but add some remarks to sum up. And first, Bingham and Wall, be- tween them, mention nine fathers, of the first and second cen- turies, who seem pretty clearly to allude to infant baptism ; some briefly and singly, others clearly and more than once. Now Mosheim's list of the genuine Fathers who wrote before A. D. 200, is only about 12 (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Pseudo Barnabas, Pastor of Hermas, Ep. to Diognetus, (probably Jus- tin's), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clem. Alexandrinus, Tertullian), if we omit 12 or. 15 more, whose names and w^orks are only made known to us by other Fathers who speak of them. And his list is nearly ex- haustive. Now seeing that few of these works are voluminous, and that some are mere fragments ; and seeing that if our theory of Pedobaptism is correct, it was a subject which did not need much agitation, as being undisputed and of ancient establishment ; here is fully as much notice of it as was reason- ably to be expected. After A. D. 200, the notices are abun- dant.

The enumerations of heresies, and refutations of them

792 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

2d. Denial of it Not drawn up by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Philas- Mentionedof AnyHer- trius, Augustine, Theodoret, (Epiphanius, for ^^^^' instance ; against 80 heresies), contain no

reference to any heretics who denied infant baptism, except those (as some Gnostic sects) who denied all baptism. And Peter de Bruys is said to be the first sectary who ever denied it. In the controversy between Augustine and Pelagians, 3d. Not Refused even ^^e latter were much pressed with the argu- by Pelagians, Under ment : " If infants have neither depravity nor the Strongest Induce- guilty why baptize them ? " Their answer

was, to gain for them heaven, instead of eter- nal life. They would have gladly given the more satisfactory answer, if it had been true, that infant baptism was an innova- tion. But they do no.t. Celestius, it is stated, repudiated the insinuation that his doctrine would lead to the denial of infant baptism, saying, he had never known any sect wicked enough for this. He and Pelagius were learned and traveled.

In the Roman Catacombs, among the many interesting

remains, are inscriptions over the graves of Catic^mb?^'"''^ '" *^ infants and young children, who are said to

be baptized, and called "faithful," "believ- ers," "brothers," while they are said to be of ages varying from 18 months to 12 years.

Infant communion, which Immersionists love to class as an

equal and similar superstition to infant bap- ion' " ^" ommun- ^jg^n^ jg a clear proof of the earlier preva- lence of the latter. For the primitive Church never gave the Lord's Supper before baptism.

But we do not rely on the patristic testimony as our

decisive argument, but on Scripture. The Authority [o us.°" "° Church early became superstitious ; and

many of their superstitions, as baptismal regeneration and infant communion, they profess to base on Scripture. But where they do so, we can usually trace and expose their misunderstanding of it. This current and early testimony is relied on, not as proving by itself that we are war- ranted to baptize infa nts, but as raising a strong probability that it was an apostolic usage, and thus supporting our scrip- tural argument.

Immersionists object vehemently to infant baptism and 10. Does Infant membership, that it floods the spirituality of Baptism Corrupt the Christ's Church with a multitude of worldly, ^^"'^'^^* nominal Christians. One of them has writ-

ten a book on "the evils of infant baptism." They point to the lamentable state of religion in Europe, in the Papacy, and in the Oriental Churches, as the legitimate result. They urge : If our Confession and Government are correct in saying, ' all baptized persons are members of the Church,' &c., (Bk. Disc. Ch. I, § 6), consistency would lead us, of course, to admit

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 793

them, without saving change, to suffrage, to office, and to seal- ing ordinances ; we should baptize their children in turn (as Methodists, Episcopalians, Papists do), and thus the whole world would be brought unsanctified into the Church, obliter- ating its spirituality. But Christ intended it to be composed only of His converted followers. The only reason why Pres- byterian and other Churches in America, do not exhibit these abominable results is, that they do not act out their creeds, and practically regard the unconverted baptized as no members. I reply :

The notion that Christ would organize His religious king- ist. Mixture in the dom on earth in contrast to human society, Church Foreseen by admitting none but pure members, is plausi- ^^^"^'^- ble and pretty. Yea, the unthinking may

reason, that as He is autocrat, heart-searching, almighty. His voluntary embracing of any impure material would look like a voluntary connivance at sin, and indifference to that sanctity which the Church was formed to promote. But it is a Utopian and unscriptural dream. See Matt, xiii : 24 and 47. Christ has not even formed the hearts of His own people thus; but permits evil to mix with them. A Church to be administered by human hands must be mixed ; anything else is but a dis- honest pretense, even among Immersionists. Christ permits a mixed body, not because He likes it, but because His wisdom sees it best under the circumstances.

It is not fair to argue from the abuse, but from proper use

of an institution. Note : God's arrangement .efctfup?ro1h?iS' under the old dispensation was liable to the

same evils, for infant Church-membership abused certainly led there to horrid corruptions. The wide corruptions of Popish and other European Churches are not traceable to proper use of infant baptism, but to other manifest causes : neglect of youthful training, State establishments. Paganism infused, hierarchical institutions, &c. If infant mem- bership were the great corrupter, and its absence the great safeguard, immersed Churches ought to be uniformly pure. How is this? It is an invidious task to make the inquiry; but it is their own test. Look, then, at Ironsides, Dunkers, Mor- mons, African Churches in America. We shall not be so uncharitable as to charge all this on immersion.

Enough for us to answer for our own principles, not those

of Papists, Episcopalians, Methodists. We 3r . a eguar s. grated our limitations on infant baptism. Where they are observed, and the duties pledged in the sacra- ment are tolerably performed, it results in high benefit. When we teach that all baptized persons "should perform all the duties of Church-members," it is not meant with unconverted hearts. The Church states the great Bible doctrine that in baptism renewing graces are promised and sealed ; and if the

794

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Acts xvi: 40
  2. Titus 1:5

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

adult does not get them, it is his fault. Our doctrine does not break down the distinction made between spiritual and carnal by sealing ordinances one whit, or give to the baptized member one particle of power to corrupt the suffrage or government of the Church.

II. The remaining cavils are best answered by stating the Scriptural view of the relation of unregenerate baptized chil- . dren to the Church, and the benefits thence inuring.

When our standards say, " All baptized persons are mem-

_ . , ^ . bers of the Church," this by no means im-

Baptized Persons in ,. ,, . ,.,, ,11 i- i-

What Sense? Ill us- phes their title to all sealing ordinances, trated by Minors in suffrage, and office. They are minor citi- Commonwealth. ^ens in the ccclesiastical commonwealth,

under tutelage, training, and instruction, and government ; heirs, if they will exercise the graces obligatory on them, of all the ultimate franchises of the Church, but not allowed to enjoy them until qualified. Yet they are, justly, under ecclesi- astical government. The reasonableness of this position is well illustrated by that of minors under the civil commonwealth. These owe allegiance and obedience, and are under the gov- ernment ; they are made to pay taxes, to testify in court, and, after a time, even to do military service and labour on the high- way. They can be tried for crimes, and even capitally pun- ished. But they may neither sit as judges in a jury, bear office, nor vote for officers, until a full age is supposed to con- fer the necessary qualification. Such must be the regulations of any organized society which embraces (on any theory) fam- ilies within it. And if the family is conceived as the integer of which the society is constituted, this status of minor members of families is yet more proper, yea, unavoidable. But such is precisely the conception of the Scriptures, concerning the integers of which both the State and Church are constituted. Now, the visible Church is an organized human society, consti- tuted of Christian families as integers, for spiritual ends — relig- ious instruction, sanctification, holy living and glorification of its members. Hence, it seems most reasonable that unregene- rate members of its families shall be, on the one hand, included under its government ; and, on the other, not endowed with its higher franchises. The State, whose purposes are secular, fixed the young citizen's majority when, by full age, he is pre- sumed to have that bodily and mental growth of the adult, which fits him for his duties. The Church recognizes the majority of its minor citizens when they show that spiritual qualification — a new heart — necessary for handling its spiritual concernments. The Church visible is also a school of Christ. Schools, notoriously, must include untaught children. That is what they exist for. But they do not allow these children to teach and govern ; they are there to be taught and restrained. The analogy is most instructive.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 795,

The Immersionist says that our communion is only saved from utter corruption by our own inconsist- ur™' ^^^^''°'' ^^^' ency ; that while our constitution calls our children Church members, we fortunately treat them, as they do, as not Church members. Whereas the Immersionist charges us with a wicked inconsistency, I will retort upon him the charge of a pious one : Those of them who are truly good people, while they say their children are not Church members, fortunately treat them as though they were. They diligently bring them under the instructions, restraints, and prayers of the Church and pastor. Happily, the instincts and influences of the Christian family are so deeply founded and so powerful, that a perverse and unscriptural theory cannot arrest them. These Christians discard the Bible conception of the visible Church, as an organized body whose integers are Christian "houses," and adopt the unscriptural and impractica- ble theory of a visible Church organized of regenerate indi- viduals. But, blessed be God ! the light and love of a sancti- fied parent's heart are too strong to be wholly perverted by this theory ; they still bring the family, as a whole, virtually within the Church. And this is the reason that true religion is perpet- uated among them.

But a more definite answer may be desired to the inquiry : Discipline Consists What are the precise shape and extent of in Instruction and Re- this instruction and government, which con- ^^^^^^- stitute the Church's "discipline" over its

unregenerate members ? To give a clear answer, let us dis- tinguish the instruction from the restraint ; the two together make up the idea of discipline. As to the former, the teaching of church-presbyters and catechists is by no means to super- sede that of the parents, but only to assist and re-enforce it. Into the sacred relation of parent and child no other human authority, not even that which Christ Himself has appointed in His Church, may intrude. None can sufficiently replace it. But all these baptized members are the " charge " of the pastor and session ; and it is the duty of these " overseers " to provide for them, and to see that they enjoy the public and social in- structions of the gospel. And pastors and elders should, moreover, extend to them that advice in temptation, and those efforts to comfort them in affliction, and to secure the sanctifi- cation of their trials, which they extend to communing members.

As to the ecclesiastical control or restraint over these Restraint Applied, unregenerate members, I remark, first, that First, Through Pa- the rule of morals should be the same as that rents. The Rule of imposed on Communicating members, save ^^'"^' that the former are not to be forced, nor

even permitted, without spiritual qualification, to take part in sealing ordinances, and church-powers. [But as to their neg- lect of these, they should be constantly taught that their dis-

7q6 syllabus and notes

qualification is their fault, and not their misfortune merely ; a sinful exercise of their free-agency, a subject for personal and present repentance ; a voluntary neglect and rejection of sav- ing graces, the sincere offer whereof was sealed to them in their baptism. And for this, their sin of heart, the Church utters a continuous, a sad and affectionate, yet a righteous censure, in keeping them in the state of minor members.] The propriety of exacting the same rule of living, in other respects, appears thus : Christ has but one law for man ; these baptized members are consecrated and separated to Christ's service in the Church as truly as the communicating members ; they owe the same debt of devotion for the mercies of redemption ; which are their offered heritage. Hence, it should be constantly taught them that questionable worldly amusements, for instance, are as inconsistent in them as in other Church members. In a word, the end of this Church authority, under which Providence has placed them, is to constrain them to live Christian lives, in order that thereby they may come unto the Christian graces in the heart.

Second, as to the means of enforcement of that rule, I would answer ; that in the case of all baptized members of im- mature age, and especially of such as are still in the houses, and under the government, of parents, the Church-Session ought mainly to restrain them through their parents. That is, the authority of these rulers should be applied to the parents, to cause them, by their domestic authority, to lead outward Christian lives, and attend upon the means of grace. And the refusal or neglect of parents to do this duty, may doubtless sub- ject them to just Church censure. Perhaps we may safely say, that the Session should reach this class of baptized members only through their parents, except in the case where the par- ents themselves refer the child's contumacy to the eldership. In this case the eldership may undoubtedly proceed to censure the recusant child. See an analogous case in the theocracy, Deut. xxi : i8, &c.

If these baptized, unregenerate members are fully adult,

If Adult the Re- ^"^ passed from parental control, then the

straint is Direct. It Church-Session must apply their restraint

May Proceed to Ex- directly to them. The mere continuance of

communicate. ^.^ • ca.i.- ^.i. r

their unregeneracy, unnttmg them lor com- munion, will of course be no suitable ground for judicial prose- cution. For the Church is already uttering her standing cen- sure against this, in their exclusion from the Lord's table. If they become wayward in outward conduct, then the Session, in addition to their constant and affectionate admonitions against their impenitence, should administer paternal cautions, advice, and entreaty, looking towards a reformation. But if they persist in flagrant and indecent sins, such as the persistent neglect of all ordinances, sensualit}', blasphemy, or dishonesty,

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 797

(such sins as would bring on a communing member excommu- nication), then nothing remains but that the Session shall pro- ceed, by judicial prosecution, to cut the reprobate member off from the Church.

Not only the Scriptures, but common sense, justify this Some Fair Way view. Are they " members of the Church ? " Must be Provided to (in the minor sense). Then natural justice- Cut Off the Reprobate, teaches that they cannot be stripped of the privileges of that membership, be they what they may, without a fair opportunity for defence, and confronting the accusing witnesses. To judge a man without formal hearing is iniquity. On the other hand, are they, in any sense, " members of the Church?" Then, to that degree, the Church is responsible for their discredit, and subject to the scandal of their irregularities. Common sense says, then, that there must be a fair way for the Church to obtain a formal severance of the membership, and publicly cleanse herself of the scandal of this contumacious member. That way can be none other than judicial prosecu- tion. Finally, when a member is so thoroughly reprobate that, to human apprehension, there is no chance of his receiving any of the ends of a Church connection, there ought to be a way to terminate it; it has become objectless. Three objections are urged against the judicial prosecution of such members. I. That its extremest sentence could only place them where they already are ; self-excluded from full communion. I answer, this is clearly an oversight. This form of discipline will, of course, only be applied in cases of flagrant immorality; and then, it will do an entirely different thing from this self- exclusion : it will sever the minor membership, and rid the Church, until the culprit repents, of the scandal of his connec- tion. It is argued, second, that judicial discipline is utterly inappropriate, where there is not even the profession of spirit- ual life. "It is like tieing a corpse to a whipping-post." That this is erroneous, is proved by every case of excommunication ; for this extreme measure is always justified by the plea, that the man discloses himself to be unregenerate. Third : It is argued that judicial discipline is irrelevant to baptized members; be- cause they are not the essential, but the accidental constituents of a visible Church. The fact is admitted ; but it is irrelevant. There could be a commonweath without minor citizens, but if there are minor citizens they must be judged as to their right to their lesser franchise, as other citizens are. No youth of six- teen years in Virginia would think it just to be hung or banished without trial, because he was not " of age ; " nor would the commonwealth deem that a sufficient reason to let him rob and murder with impunity. In fine, the practice of at least some of the Reformed Churches once illustrated the benefits of this position.

On this statement of the matter, it is obvious that the

798 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

usage in our churches has fallen exceedingly qu?nt ^'""^^ ^^^''" far from the Bible rule, and that the taunts of the Immersionists are to a great degree well founded : that we are not consistent in our paedobaptism. And it may be, that the leavening of men's minds, in this country, with the unscriptural ideas of the Immersionists may have produced a license of feeling among youths, which greatly increases the difficulty of Church Sessions' doing their whole duty. It may, indeed, be almost impossible for any single Ses- sion to do it among us, in the face of this unfortunate corrup- tion of society, and of the obstinate neglect of all sister Church Sessions around them. But the question for the honest mind is : Should a corrupt practice continue to preclude a right principle? Or should the correct principle amend the vicious practice ? And the happy example of many of the Reformed Churches teaches us that this discipline of baptized members is feasible, reasonable, and most profitable. The Presbyterian Church of Holland, for instance, in its better days; and the Evangelical Church of Holland now, uniformly governs their children on the Scriptural principles above described.

The benefits of infant baptism, and of this form of mem- Benefits of the Bible bership for the children of God's believing Plan— Children of the people, are great. Some of them are very Church its Hope. forcibly set forth by Dr. John M. Mason, in

his invaluable treatise on the Church, Borrowing in part from him, I would remark, that this relation to the Church, and this discipline, are, first, in exact harmony with the great fact of ex- perience, that the children of God's people are the great hope of the Church's increase. This being a fact, it is obviously wis- dom to organize the Church with reference to it, so as to pro- vide every proper means of training for working up this the most hopeful material for Zion's increase. To neglect this ob- vious policy seems, indeed, little short of madness. As we have seen, Immersionists' communions only enjoy true pros- perity, in virtue of their virtual employment of the principle of infant Church-membership ; grace and love being in them fortunately, stronger than a bad theory.

Second : This Bible plan is in strict conformity with those The Bible Plan Agrees doctrines of grace, and principles of human with Nature and Grace, nature, whicli God employs for the sanctifi- Prov. xxii:6. cation of His people. Our theory assumes

that God's covenant is with His people and their seed. (Acts ii : 39). That their seed are heirs of the promises made to the fathers (Acts iii : 25) : that the cause which excludes any such from saving interest in redemption is voluntary and criminal, viz., unbelief and impenitence — a cause which they are all bound to correct at once, if they are arrived at the years of discretion; that the continuance of this cause, however just a reason for the eldership's excluding them from certain privi-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 799

leges and functions, is no justification whatever for their neglect- ing them. And, above all, does our plan found itself on the great rule of experience, common sense, and Scripture, that if you would form a soul to the hearty embracing of right prin- ciples, you must make him observe the conduct which those principles dictate. Every faithful parent in the world acts on this rule in rearing his children. If the child is untruthful, unsympathizing, unforgiving, indolent, he compels him, while young, to observe a course of truth, charity, forgiveness and industry. Why ? Because the parent considers that the out- ward observance of these virtues will be either permanent or praiseworthy if, when the child becomes a man, he only observes them from fear or hypocrisy? Not at all; but because the parent knows, that human nature is moulded by habits ; that the practice of a principle always strengthens it ; that this use of his parental authority is the most natural and hopeful means to teach the child heartily to prefer and adopt the right prin- ciple, when he becomes his own man ; that it would be the merest folly to pretend didactically to teach the child the right, and leave all-powerful Habit to teach him the wrong, and to let the child spend his youth in riveting the bonds of bad habit, which, if he is ever to adopt and love the right principle, he must break. Will not our heavenly Father act on the same rule of good sense toward His children ? Is not the professed prin- ciple of the Immersionist just the folly we have described ? Happily, Scripture agrees with all experience and practical wisdom, in saying that if you wish a child to adopt and love the principles of a Church-member when he is grown, 3'ou must make him behave as a Church-member while he is growing.

Third : Many collateral advantages are gained by this minor citizenship of the baptized in the van ages. Q-^m.,;,]-^^ They are retained under whole- some restraints. Their carnal opposition to the truth is greatly disarmed by early association. The numerical and pecuniary basis of the Church's operations is widened. And where the sealing ordinances are properly guarded, these advantages are gained without any compromise of the Church's spirituality. Paedobaptist communities which are scripturally conducted pre- sent as high a grade of purity, even including their baptized members, as any others. For, on this corrupt earth, the best communion is far from being what it ought to be. Where the duties represented in the sacrament of baptism are properly followed up, the actual regeneration of children is the ordinary result.

LECTURE LXVn.

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Prov. xxii:6

SYLLABUS

See Conf. of Faith, ch. 29 with Catechisms.

1. Give a definition of this sacrament, with tlie Scriptural account of its institu- tion,- names, and ceremonial.

See Matt, xxvi : 26-29; Mark xiv : 22-26; Luke xxii : 15-21 ; i Cor. x : 16, 17; xi : 17 to end. Dick, Lect. 92. Turrettin, Loc. xix, Qu. 21.

2. Wliat are the elements, in what manner to be prepared and set apart, and what their sacramental significance ?

Turrettin, Qu. 22, 23, 24. Hill, bk. v, ch. 7. Dick, Lect. 92.

3. State and refute the doctrine of the real presence by a Transubstantiation, with the elevation and worship of the host.

Council of Trent, Sess. 13, especially ch. 4, and Canons Cat. Rom. pt. ii, ch. 4, Qu. 17-41. Turrettin, Qu. 26, 27. Calvin's Inst., bk. iv, ch. 18. Hill, as above. Archbishop Tillottson and Bishop StiUingfleet against Transub- stantiation. Dick, Lect. 90.

4. State and refute the doctrine of Consubstantiation.

Turrettin, Qu. 26, 28. Augsb. Confession, and other Lutheran symbols. Hill, as above. Dick, Lect. 91.

' I "*HE only sacrament which Protestants recognize, besides

baptism, is that called by them, in imitation of Paul (i Cor.

xi : 20), "The Lord's Supper" (JcF-vov

I. Scriptural Names. ^\ ,-r^, , ,, c- ■ . 1

y.O[icfj:/.ov). ihe only other Scriptural names

which seem clearly established are the breaking of bread {yjAat^i TOO drno'j, Acts ii : 42-46 ; xx : 7), and possibly xocviovia ( i Cor. X : 16). The cup is called no-rjptov rv^^ ehhrftaq, (i Cor. x : 16), but this is evidently not a name for the whole ordinance. And in verse 21, communicating is called partaking of the Lord's Table {-^6.-^.^0). This hardly amounts to a calling of the ordi- nance by the name of " table ;" but it is "instructive, as showing no favour whatever to the notion of altars and sacrifice, as con- nected with the Lord's Supper.

Among the fathers it was called often zhyaptoria, some- ^ . . ^^ times au'jdqtc. or hctounrio. ; more often &oata,

or p.uarrj()cov\ or among the Latins, inissa. The use of the word dvala was at first only rhetorical and figu- rative; and thus the error of considering the Lord's Supper an actual sacrifice had its way prepared. While the Romanists sometimes endeavor to trace the word inissa to other etynoms (as to Dp tribute; rirnty^"^, banquet; or to /i!j;j<Trc, initiation),

its derivation is undoubtedly from the formulary with which the spectators and catechumens were dismissed before the cele- bration of the Lord's Supper : inissa est (viz., congregatio).

The definition which Presbyterians hold, is that of our

_ ^ . . , -, Catechisms, e. g., Shorter, Qu. q6 : " The

Definition and Nature, t n ■ , 1 • 1

Lord u supper is a sacrament wherein, by 800

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 80I

giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth ; and the wortliy receiv- ers are not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace." This is obviously no more than a correct digest of the views stated or implied in the sundry passages where the ordinance is described. Its institution was evidently simple and free from mystery ; and had not the strange career of superstition been run on this sub- ject by the Christian Church, the dispassionate reader would have derived no conceptions from the sacred narrative but the simple ones of a commemorative' seal. And these natural, popular views of the sacrament are doubtless best adapted for edification.

I hold that our Saviour undoubtedly held His last passover on the regular passover evening, and that tion.^^ °'^ ° "^ ^' ^^^^ ordinance, intended by Him to super- sede and replace the passover (i Cor. v : 7), was very quietly introduced at its close. To do this. He took up the bread (doubtless the unleavened bread of the occasion), and the cup of wine (after Jewish fashion mingled with water), provided for the occasion, and introduced them to their new use by an act of solemn thanksgiving to God. Then He brake the bread and distributed it, and, after the bread, the wine — partaking of neither Himself — saying: "This do in remem- brance of Me; eat, drink ye all of it, to show forth the Lord's death till He come." These mandatory words were accom- panied also with certain explicatory words, conveying the nature of the symbol and pledge ; stating that the bread repre- sented His body, and the cup the covenant made in His blood — the body lacerated and killed, and the blood shed, for redemption. The sacramental acts, therefore, warranted by Christ are, the taking, breaking, and distributing the elements, on the administrator's part, and their manual reception, and eating or drinking, on the recipient's part. The sacramental words are the thanksgiving, the explicatory and promissory, and the man- datory. The . whole is then appropriately concluded with another act of praise (not sacramental, but an appendage thereto), either by praying, or singing, or both. And to add anything else is superstition.

To continue this subject: The elements are bread and ^, ^ wine. The Greek Church says the bread

2. Elements. , , i i t • i ,

must be leavened, the JLatm unleavened, making this a point of serious importance. We believe that the bread used was paschal. But it was not Christ's intention to give ritually a paschal character to the new sacrament ; and bread is employed as the material element of nutrition, the one most familiar and universal. Hence, we regard all the disputes as to leaven, and the other ininuti<2 made essential by the Romish SI*

802 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

lubrick (wheaten, mingled with proper water, not worm-eaten, &c.,) as non-essential. Probably the wine was also mingled with water on the first occasion ; but, on the same grounds, we regard it as selected simply as the most common and familiar refresh- ment of the human race ; and the presence of water is therefore non-essential. Indeed, modern chemistry has shown that, in all wine, water is the solvent, and the largest constituent.

According to all Christians, these elements are conceived as undergoing some kind of consecration. WhatT ^'^^^'^'^^ °" Rome places this in the pronunciation of the words of institution, " This is My body," and teaches that it results in a total change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. But the only change which Protestants admit in a consecration of the elements, is the simple change of their use, from a com- mon, to a sacred and sacramental one. And this consecration we believe to be wrought, not by pronouncing the words, "This is My body," but by the eucharistic act of worship which introduces the sacrament. For the natural language of consecration is that of worship ; not that of a didactic and promissory sentence. Witness the cases of grace over our food, and all the consecrations of the Old Testament, e. g., Deut. xxvi : 5-10. When Christ says, " This is My Body," were the consecration what Papists suppose, these words would imply that it is already made. And last, the words, sup- posed by them to be words of consecration, are too va- riant in the different histories of the sacrament in sacred Scripture.

The breaking of the bread is plainly one of the sacramen- tal acts, and should never be done before- Bread^Significant. ^ hand, by Others, nor ommitted by the minis- ter. The words etc dfjzo^ (i Cor. x : 17) are not correctly represented in the English version. The proper force of the word, as may be seen in Jno. vi : 9, is loaf, or more properly, cake ; and the Apostle's idea is, that the oneness of the mass of bread, and of the cup, partaken by all, signifies their unity in one spiritual body. It would be better that the bread should be taken by the ofificiator in one mass, and broken before the people, after the prayer. The proper significancy of the sacrament requires it ; for the Christ we commemorate is the Christ lacerated and .slain. Further; Christ brake the bread in distributing it ; and commanded us to imitate Him, saying: "This do," &c. Third; the Apostles undoubtedly made the breaking one of the sacramental acts ; for Paul says, I Cor. X : 16, "The bread which we break," &:c. Last, when the sacrament itself is more often called "the breaking of bread," than by any other one name, it can hardly be sup- posed that the breaking is not a proper part of the cere- monial.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 803

There is also a significancy in the taking of the wine after Pouring of the Wine, the bread, in a distinct act of reception; after the ]5read, Signif- because it is the blood as separated from the ^'^^"*' body by death, that we commemorate.

Hence the soaking of the bread in the cup is improper, as well as the plea by which Rome justifies communion in one kind; that as the blood is in the body, the bread conveys alone a complete sacrament. As we should commemorate it, the blood is not in the body, but poured out.

The acts on the Communicant's part, also, are sacramental and significant, viz : the taking and eating. ConSlunTcSnts^''' °' These acts symbolize generally, Faith, as the soul's receptive act; just as the elements distributed by God's institution signify that which is the object of faith, Christ slain for our redemption. But the Confession 29, § I, states, in greater detail, and with strict scriptural pro- priety, that these acts commemorate Christ's death, constitute a profession and engagement to serve Him, show the reception of a covenanted redemption thus sealed to us, and indicate our communion with each other and Christ, our Head, in one spiri- tual body. The first idea is plainly set forth in i Cor. xi : 24, last clause, as well as parallel passages, and in verses 25 and 26. The second is implied in the first, in the individual char- acter of the act, in i Cor. xi : 25, "covenant," and in the nature of faith, which embraces Christ as our Saviour from sin unto holiness. The third idea is plainly implied in the signifi- cancy of the elements themselves, which are the materials of nutrition and refreshment; as well as in Jno. vi : 50-55. For though we strenuously dispute, against Rome, that the lan- guage of this passage is descriptive of the Lord's Supper, it is manifest that the Supper was afterward's devised upon the anal- ogy which furnished the metaphor of the passage. And the didactic and promissory language, "This is My body," "This is My blood," sacramentally understood, obviously convey the idea of nutrition offered to the soul. The last idea is very clearly set forth in i Cor. x : 16, 17. And this is the feature of the sacrament from which it has received its popular name, of Communion of the Lord's Supper.

The parties who may properly partake of the Lord's Sup-

Who May Partake? P^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^e^' } ^^^^ f \ ^7-^0,

as to leav^e no room tor debate. It is those who have examined themselves successfully "of their knowl- edge to discern the Lord's body, and faith to feed on Him, repentance, love, and, new obedience." Shorter Catechism, question 97, See, also. Larger Catechism, question 171-175. That this sacrament is to be given only to credible professors, does not indeed follow necessarily from the fact that it symbol- izes saving grace ; for baptism does this ; but from the express limitation of Paul, and from the different graces symbolized.

804 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Baptism symbolizes those graces which initiate the Christian Hfe : The Supper, those also which continue it. Hence, while the former is once applied to infants born within the covenant, to ratify their outward membership, in the dependence on the gracious promise that they shall be brought to commence the Christian life afterwards ; it would be wrong to grant the sec- ond sacrament to any who have not given some indication of an actual progress in spiritual life.

Thus far, all has been intelligible, reasonable, and adapted 1 The Supper soon ^° nourish and comfort the faith of the plain Perverted by two Er- believer. But the well-informed are aware ^°''^- that this ordinance, so quietly and simply in-

troduced by our Saviour, and so simply explained, has met the strange fortune of becoming the especial subject of superstitious amplification ; until, in the Romish Church, it has become nearly the whole of worship. It would be interesting to trace the history of this growth ; but time only allows us to remark, that two unscriptural ideas became early associated with it; in con- sequence of a pagan grossness of perception, and a false expo- sition of Scripture. One of these was that of a literal or real corporeal presence ; the other that of a true sacrifice for sin. Still, those more superstitious Christians who held these two ideas, did not, for a long time, define the manner in which they were supposed to be true. At length two theories developed themselves, that of Paschasius Radbert, transubstantiation ; and that of Berengar, consubstantiation. The former of these tri- umphed in the Lateran Council 1215 ; the latter was condemned as heretical, till Luther revived it, though stripped of the sacri- ficial feature.

According to Rome, when the priest canonically, and with

. . proper intention, pronounces the words in the

Transubstantiation. << tr ^ j. >» i-u u j j

mass : noc est corpus nieum, the bread and wine are changed into the very body and blood of the living Christ, including, of course, His soul and divinity ; which me- diatorial person, the priest does then truly and literally break and offer again, as a proper sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead ; and he and the people eat Him. True ; the ac- cidents, or material qualities of bread and wine remain, but in and under them, the substance of bread is gone, and the sub- stance really existing is Christ's person. But in this condition of things, it exists without the customary material attributes of locality, extension, and divisibility ; for He is none the less in heaven, and in all the ' hosts,' all over the world at once ; and into however small parts they may be divided, each is a perfect Christ ! Hence, to elevate, and carry this host in procession, and to worship it with Aa.zr)zi(i is perfectly proper. Whether such a batch of absurdities is really believed by any reflecting mind, it is not for us to decide.

The scriptural basis for this monstrous superstructure is

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 805

very narrow, while the papal is wide enough. ^^ScripturalArguments ^^^^ depends chiefly in Scripture on the

language of Jno. vi : 50, &c., and on the as- sertion of the absolutely literal interpretation of the words of institution in the parallel passages cited by us at the beginning. We easily set aside the argument from Jno. vi : 50, &c., by the remark, that it applies not to the Lord's Supper, but to the spir- itual actings of faith on Christ figuratively described. For the Lord's Supper was not yet instituted ; and it is absurd to sup- pose that our Saviour would use language necessarily unintelli- gible to all His followers, the subject never having been divulged to them. On the contrary, in verse 35, we find that the coming and eating is defined as the actings of faith. If the chapter be forced into an application to the Supper, then verses 53 and 54 explicitly teach that every one who eats the Supper goes to heaven, and that no one who fails to eat it does ; neither of which Rome admits : And in verse 6^, our Saviour fixes a figur- ative and spiritual interpretation of His words, beyond all •question.

When we proceed to the words of institution, we assert

that the obvious meaning is tropical ; and is Pr^:Sy ExJJatet"" equivalent to "This represents my body."

The evidences of this are manifold. First, we cite the frequency of similar locutions in Hebrew, and He- braistic Greek. Consult Gen. xli : 26, 27 ; Ezek. xxxvii : 1 1 ; Dan. vii : 24; Exod. xii : ii ; Matt, xiii : 38, 39; Rev. i : 20; xvii : g, 12, 18, ct passim. Yea, we find Christ saying of Him- self: " I am the way, the truth, the life," Jno. xiv : 6 ; "the vine," Jno. XV : I ; " the door," Jno. x : 9. Why is a tropical exposition more reasonable or neccessary here ? Yet, without it we make ■absolute nonsense.

But even if we had no usage to illustrate our Saviour's

sense, it would be manifest from the text and Propr ^^^''^''^ °^ context alone, that His sense is tropical. The

TouTo must be demonstrative of bread, and equivalent to, this bread (is my body) ; because bread is the nearest antecedent, the whole series of the narrative shows it ; in the parallel case of the W4ine,cup is, in one narrative, expressed: and the allusion of Paul, i Cor. x : 16, "The bread which we break," shows it. So, the aCofj.a. means evidently the body dead (corpse), as is proved by the expression "broken for you," and by the fact that the blood is separated from it : as well as by current usage of narratives. Now paraphrase the sentence : " This bread is my dead body," and any other than a tropical sense is impossible. For (a.) The predication is self-contradic- tory ; if it is bread, it is not body ; if body, it is not bread, sub- ject or predicate is out of joint, (b.) The body was not yet dead, by many hours, (c.) Incompatibles cannot be predi- cated of each other. A given substance A. cannot be changed

8o6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

into a substance B. which was pre-existent before the change ; because the change must bring B. into existence.

Again : all will admit that the proper sense is that in which

the disciples comprehended the words as first

have'A^J'rSdX"' ^P^ken. It is impossible that they should

have understood the bread as truly the body:

because they saw the body handling the bread ! The body

would have been wholly in its own hand !

Scripture calls it bread still after it is said, by Papists, to be transubstantiated, i Cor. x : 17. "All partakers of that one bread." See also, i Cor. xi : 26, 27, 28.

There are variations of language which are utterly incom- patible with a strictly literal sense. In the gospels it is said : " He took the cup , . . and said This is my blood," &c. There must be here a metonom)^ of the cup for that which it contains — at least. But in i Cor. xi : 25, the words are " This cup is the new covenant of my blood," &c., where, if literalness is retained, we get the impossible and most unpopish idea, that the cup was the covenant.

But passing from the exegetical, to the general argument, Transubstantiation ^ literal transubstantiation is impossible, be- Absurd. (a.) Because cause it violates our senses. They all tell us it Violates our Senses. ^^ is still bread and wine, by touch, taste, smell, sight. The senses are the only inlets of information as to external facts ; if we may not believe their deliberate testi- mony, there is an end of all acquired knowledge. This may be fairly stated in a stronger form : it is impossible that my mind can be validly taught the fact of such a transubstantiation ; for the only channel by which I can be taught it is the senses ; and transubstantiation, if true, would teach me that my senses do not convey truth. It is just as likely that I do not hear Rome say- ing, " Transubstantiation is true," when I seem to hear her, as that I do not see a wafer, but a Christ, when I seem to see it. Nor is it any answer to say : the senses deceive us. This is only when hurried; and the sensible medium imp.^rfect, or senses diseased. Here all the four senses of all men, in health unani- mously perceive only bread and wine.

In the second place, it is impossible to be true ; because it (b.) It violates Rea- violates our understanding. Our mental in- son. No Plea to call tuitions Compel us to recognize substance by It a Miracle. j^g sensible attributes. Those attributes in-

here only in the substance, and can only be present by its pres- ence. It is impossible to avoid this reference. An attribute or accident is relative to its substance ; to attempt to conceive of it as separate destroys it. Again : it is impossible for us to ab- stract from matter, the attributes of locality, dimension, and divisibility. But transubstantiation requires us to conceive of Christ's body without all these. Again : it is impossible for matter to be ubiquitous ; but Christ's body must be so, if this

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 807

doctrine be true. And it is vain to attempt an evasion of these two arguments from sense and reason, by pleading a great and mysterious miracle. For God's omnipotence does not work the impossible and the natural contradiction. And whatever miracle has ever taken place, has necessarily been just as de- pendent on human senses, for man's cognizance of its occur- rence, as any common event. So that if the fundamental law of the senses is outraged, man is as incapable of knowing a mir- acle as any other thing.

Once more the doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts the analogy of faith. It is incompatible with

(c.) It violates the our Saviour's professed attitude and intention. Analogy 01 b aith. , . , , *^ . . -n

which was then to mstitute a sacrament. Jout Rome herself defines a sacrament as an outward sign of an in- visible grace. Hence Christ's attitude and intention naturally lead us to regard the elements as only signs. This is true of all the sacraments of Old and New Testaments, unless this be an exception: and especially of the passover, on which the Supper was engrafted.

Transubstantiation would utterly destroy the nature of a sacrament ; because, if the symbols are changed into the Christ, there is no sign.

It contradicts also the doctrine of Christ's ascension and second advent. For these teach us, that He is at the Father's right hand now, and will only come thence at the final consum- mation.

It contradicts the doctrine of atonement, substituting a loathsome form of sacred (literal) cannibalism, for that faith of the soul, which receives the legal effects of Christ's atoning suf- ferings as its justification.

Transubstantiation being disproved, all elevation and wor- ship of the host, as well as kneeling at the to bemSppef ""' sacrament, are disproved. The Episcopal reasons for the latter are, that while no change of the bread and wine is admitted, and no worship of them designed, yet the reverence, contrition and homage of the believer for his crucified Saviour prompt him to kneel to Christ. We reply, that the worship of Christ is of course proper at all proper times. But the attitude of worship is not proper at the moment when Christ expressly commands us to do something else than kneel. Had the paralytic, for instance, of Matt, ix : 5, 6. when he received the order, "Arise, take up thy bed and go," insisted on kneeling just then, it would have been dis- obedience, and not reverence. So, when Christ calls us to a communion in eating together His sacramental supper, the proper posture is that of a guest, for the time. If any Christian desires to show his homage by coming to the table from his knees, and returning from it to them, very well. But let him not kneel, in the very act in which Christ commands him to feast.

808 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Consubstantiation teaches that there is no Hteral change of 4, Consubstantiation the elements, but that they remain simple Equally Erroneous, but bread and wine. Yet, in a mysterious and not so Impious. miraculous manner, there is a real presence,

in, under, and along with them, of the whole person of Christ, which is literally, though invisibly, eaten along with them. Unworthy communicants also receive it, to their own dam- nation. While this doctrine is not attended with the impious results of transubstantiation, it is liable to nearly all the exe- getical, sensible, rational, and doctrinal objections. Indeed, in one sense, the exegetical objections are stronger ; because it literalness must needs be retained in the words of institution, it is a less violation of language to make them mean the bread is the body, than that the bread accompanies the body. The Lutheran exegesis, while boasting of its faithful preservation ot our Saviour's language, really neither makes it literal, nor inter- prets it by any allowable trope. It does not outrage the under- standing so much, by requiring us to believe that substance can be separate from all its accidents ; for it professes to leave the substance of the bread untouched. Nor is it so obnoxious to the last head of objections raised .against transubstantiation, in that it does not destroy the sacramental sign. But the rest of my arguments apply against it, and need not be recapitulated.

SYLLABUS

5. In what sense did Calvin hold a Real Presence ? What the doctrine of Zuing- lius concerning it ; and what the doctrine of the Westminster Divines ?

Calvin Inst. bk. iv, ch. 17, ^ i-ii> and Commentaries. Zwinglii Ratio Fidei \ 8. Dorner's Hist. Prot. Theo., Vol. 1^2, ch. 3. Dr. Wm. Cunningham, Discussion of Ch. Prin. Conf of Faith, ch. 29, Hill, bk. v, ch. 7. Dick, Lect. 91. Turrettin, Loc. xix, Qu. 28. Hodge, Theol. Vol. 3, ch. 20, \ 16. So. Presb. Rev., Jan. 1876, Art. 6.

6. Is tlie Lord's Supper a sacrifice ?

See Council of Trent, Sess. 13, ch. 2. Cat. Rom. pt. ii, ch. 4, Qu. 53. Tur- rettin, Qu. 29. Dick, Lect. 91.

7. Are private communions admissable ? Cat. Rom. as above. Dick, Lect. 92.

8. Defend the propriety of communion in both kinds.

Cat. Rom. as above, Qu. 50, &c. Calvin Inst. bk. iv, ch. 17. Turrettin, Qu. 25.

9. Who should administer the Lord's Supper ? Ridgley, Qu. 168 to 170, \ 2.

10. What is the nature of the efficiency of the sacrament to worthy communi- - cants, and of the sin of its abuse by the unworthy ?

Calvin Inst. bk. iv, ch. 14, especially \ 17. Hill and Dick as above. Knapp, \ 145. See also on whole, Knapp, | 144, 146.

T^ HERE is a sense, in which all evangelical Christians

would admit a real presence in the Lord's Supper. The

second Person of the Trinity being very God,

R ^*l?r°*^ence^ ^^^ immense and ubiquitous, is of course present

wherever the bread and wine are distributed.

Likewise, His operations are present, through the power of the

Holy Ghost employing the elements as means of grace, with all

true believers communicating. (Matt, xviii : 20). But this is

the only sort of presence admitted by us.

Zwinglius, seemingly the most emancipated of all the Reformers from superstition and prejudice, Suppirf^''^" ^^^^ °f taught that the sacrament is only a com- memorative seal, and that the human part of Christ's person is not present in the sacrament, except to the faith of the intelligent believer. This he sustains irrefragably by the many passages in which we are taught that Christ's humanity is ascended into the heavens, thence to return no more till the end of all things. That this humanity, however glorified, has its iibi, just as strictly as any human body; that if there is any literal humanity fed upon for redemption by the believing communicant, it must be his passible and suffering humanity, while Christ's proper humanity is now glorified ; (which would necessitate giving Christ a double humanity) ; and that the sacramental language is tropical, as is evinced by a sound exegesis and the testimony of the better Fathers. The ■defect of the Zwinglian view is, that while it hints, it does not

809

8 10 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

distinctly enough assert, the seaHng nature of the sacraments. Both Romanist and Lutheran minds, accustomed to regard Calvin's View. Prop- • ^^^ Eucharist from points of view intensely erly Grounded on Vital mystical, received the Zvvinglian with loud Union to Christ; yet clamour, as being odiously bald and rational- Overstrains it. • ,• /^i-iir i_- T-

istic. Calvin, thereiore, bemg perhaps some- what influenced by personal attachments to ]\Ielancthon, and by a desire to heal the lamentable dissensions of Reformed and Lutherans, propounded (in his Inst, and elsewhere) an inter- mediate view. This is, that the humanity, as well as the divinity of Christ, in a word, his whole person, is spiritually, yet really present, not to the bodily mouth, but to the souls of true com- municants, so that though the humanity be in heaven only, it is- still fed on in some ineffable, yet real and literal way, by the souls of believers. The ingenious and acute defence of this strange opinion, contained in the Inst. Bk. iv : Ch. 17, proceeds upon this postulate, which I regard as correct, and as eminently illustrative of the true nature of the sacramental efficiency ; that the Lord's Supper represents and applies the vital, mystical union of the Lord with believers. Such therefore as the vital union is, such must be our view of the sacrament of the Supper, Is the vital union then, only a secret relationship between Christ and the soul, instituted when faith is first exercised, and consti- tuted by the indwelling and operation of the Holy Ghost : or, is it a mysterious, yet substantial conjunction, of the spiritual substance, soul, to the whole substance of the mediatorial Per- son, including especially the humanity ? In a word, does the spiritual vitality propagate itself in a mode strictly analogous to that, in which vegetable vitality is propagated from the stock into the graft, by actual conjunction of substance? Now Cal- vin answers, emphatically : the union is of the latter kind. His view seems to be, that not only the mediatorial Person, but especially the corporeal part thereof, has been established by the incarnation, as a sort of duct through which the inherent spiritual life of God, the fountain is transmitted to believers, through the mystical union. His arguments are, that the body of Christ is asserted to be our life, in places so numerous and emphatic (Jno. i : i, 14 ; vi : 27, 33, 51-59 ; Eph. v : 30 ; i Cor, vi : 15 ; Eph. iv : 16) that exegetical fidelity requires of us- to understand by it more than a participation in spiritual indwell- ing and influences purchased for believers by His death ; that the incomprehensibility of a spiritual, though true and literal, substantial conjunction of our souls with Christ's flesh in heaven, should not lead us to reject the word of our God ; and that faith cannot be the whole amount of the vital union of believers to Christ, inasmuch as it is said to be by faith. The union must be more than the means which constitutes it.

Now, it is this view of Calvin, which we find Hill asserting,.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 8ll

and Dick and Cunningham denying, as the mL\SDoXtl7""'' estabhshed doctrine of the AngHcan and

Scotch Churches, and of the Westminster Assembly. A careful examination of Ch. xxix : § 7, the decisive passage of our Confession, will show, I think, that it was the intention of the Westminster Assembly, while not repudiating Calvin's views or phraseology in a marked and individual man- ner, yet to modify all that was untenable and unscriptural in it. It is declared that worthy communicants " do really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporeally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death : the body and blood of Christ being then not corporeally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers," as the elements themselves to their senses. Note first : that they say believers receive and feed spiritually upon Christ crucified and the bene- fits of His death ; not with Calvin, on His literal flesh and blood. Next, the presence which grounds this receiving, is only a presence to our faith, of Christ's body and blood ! Hence we construe the Confession we think fairly, to mean by the receiv- ing and feeding, precisely the spiritual actings of faith in Christ as our Redeemer, and on His body slain, and blood poured out, as the steps of His atoning work ; so that the thing which the soul actually embraces, is not the corporeal substance of His slain body and shed blood, but their Redeeming virtue. The discriminating remarks of Turrettin, Qu. 28, (Introduc.) are doubtless correct : and are doubtless the expression of the very view the Assembly intended to embody. The human person of Christ cannot be said to be present in the sense of substantive proximity or contact ; but only in this sense ; that we say a thing is present, when it is under the cognizance of the faculty naturally adapted for its apprehension. Thus the sun is called present in day, absent at night. He is no farther distant in fact ; but his beams do not operate on our visual organ. The blind man is said to be without light ; although the rays may touch his sightless balls. So a mental or spiritual presence, is that which places the object before the cognizance of the appro- priate mental faculty. In this sense only, the sacrament brings Christ before us ; that it places Him, in faith, before the cogni- zance of the sanctified understanding and heart.

We reject the view of Calvin concerning the real presence,

, . , ^ . . [recognizing our obligation to meet and Calvin s Proposition i-r^i c-i t. ^

Impossible. account lor the Scriptures he quotes, m a

believing, and not in a rationalistic spirit] ;

first, because it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible.

Does it not require us to admit, in admitting the literal (though

spiritual) reception of Christ's corporeal part, it in a distant

heaven, and we on earth ; that matter may exist without its

essential attributes of locality and dimension ? Have not our

8 12 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

souls their 2ibi? They are limited, substantively, to some spot within the superficies of our bodies, just as really as though they were material. Has not Christ's flesh its iibi, though glo- rified, and as much more brilliant than ours, as a diamond is than carbon ? To my mind, therefore, there is as real a viola- tion of my intuitive reason, in this doctrine ; as when transub- stantiation requires me to believe that the flesh of Christ is present, indivisible and unextended, in each crumb or drop of the elements. Both are contrary to the laws of extension. And that Christ's glorified body dwells on high, no more to return actually to earth till the final consummation is asserted too plainly and frequently to be disputed. (Matt, xxvi : 1 1 ; Jno. xvi : 28 ; xvii : 1 1 ; xvi : 7 ; Luke xxiv : 5 1 ; Acts iii : 21 ; i : II.

Second. The bread broken and wine poured out symbol- ize the body broken and slain, and blood \,\ll^lio^^l':T' shed, by death. Now, according to Calvin, it is a mystical union which is sealed and applied in the Lord's Supper, so as to propagate spiritual life ; and throughout John vi, where His life-giving flesh is so much spoken of, it is not the Lord's Supper, but the believers' union to Christ, which is described. Well, how unreasonable it is to suppose spiritual life communicated through the actual, corpo- real substance of Christ's body, at the very stage at which the body is itself lifeless ?

Third. While the Old Testament believers had not the Old Testament identical sacraments which we have, they Saints could not Share had the Same kind of spiritual life, nourished '*• in the same way. (See Rom. iv : 5 ; Heb.

xi, and especially l Cor. x : 1-4). Here the very same figure is employed — that of eating and drinking. How could this be an eating of His flesh, when that flesh was not yet in existence ?

This remark brings that theory of the mystical union, on which the Romish, the Lutheran, and the patristic doctrines of the " real presence rest," to a decisive test. Were Old Tes- tament saints saved in the same gospel way with us? Yes. Then that theory which makes the theanthropic Person the corporeal duct of spiritual life, is not true : for when they were saved, there was no theanthropic Person.

Fourth. The sixth chapter of John contains many inter- nal marks, by which the feeding on Christ is •Simply BeEg°" '' identified with faith, and His fl^esh is shown to be only a figure for the benefits of His redempftion. The occasion — the miracle of feeding the thous- ands with five loaves and two fishes, and the consequent pursuit of Christ by the multitude, made it very natural that Christ should adopt the figure of an eating of food, to represent receiving Him. Verse 29 shows that eating is simply believing; for had Calvin's sense been true, our Saviour would not have

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 815

said so emphatically, that believing was the work of God. In verse 35, again, it is implied that the eating is but coming, i. e., believing. So, verses 40, 47 with 50. In verse 53, we have language which is as destructive of a spiritual feeding on the literal bodj^ in the sacraments, as of a corporeal ; for in either case it would be made to teach the unscriptural doctrine, that a soul cannot be saved without the sacraments. In verses 67,, our Saviour plainly interprets His own meaning. Christ's omniscience having shown Him that the hearers were miscon- cieving His words, as of a literal and corporeal eating ; He here proceeds to correct that mistake. His scope may be thus par- aphrased : "Are your minds so gross as to suppose that salva- tion is to be attained by a literal eating of the Saviour's material flesh ? No wonder you are scandalized by so gross an idea ! Is it not a sufficient proof of its erroneousness, that in a few months you are to see the Redeemer's person (divine and corporeal) ascend to the heavens from which the eternal Word descended ? Of course, that utter seclusion of His material body from the militant Church sufficiently explodes every idea of a material presence and literal eating. But besides : all such notions misconceive the true nature of redemption. This is a spiritual work ; no material flesh can have any profitable agency to promote it, as it is a propagation of life in the soul ; the agency must be spiritual ; not physical. And the vehicle of that agency is the gospel word, not any material flesh, how- ever connected with the redeeming Person. The thing you lack, is not any such literal eating (a thing as useless as impos- sible) but true, living faith on Christ." (Verses 60-64). The best proof of the justice of this exposition is its perfect coher- ency with the context. Calvin {Com. in loco) labours hard, but unsuccessfully, to make the passage bear another sense, which would not be fatal to the peculiar feature of his theory. And the whole tenour of Scripture (e. g. Matt, xv : 17, 18), is unfavourable to the conception of the moral condition of the soul's being made dependent on a reception of corporeal sub- stance.

Last. (See i Cor. xi : 27, 29). The destructive effects of Calvin Inconsistent unworthy communicating are here described with Results of Unwor- in terms which plainly make this mischief thy Eating. ^^ counterpart of the benefit which the true

believer derives, by proper communicating. Now, if this latter is an access of spiritual life through a substantial (though spiri- tual) reception of Christ's Person, the former must be a propa- gation of spiritual death, through the poisonous effects of this same Person, substantively present to the soul. But, says Cal- vin, with obvious correctness, the unbelieving communicant does not get the Person of Christ into contact with his soul at all ! The thing he guiltily does, is the keeping of Christ away^ from his soul totally, by his unbelief.

8 14 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Here we may appropriately answer the tenth question. We hold that the Lord's Supper is a means

True Nature of Sac- r j i.i • i. i i.- r

ramental Efficiency. °^ g^^^e ; and the scriptural conception of

this phrase explains the manner in which the sacrament is efficacious to worthy communicants. It sets forth the central truths of redemption, in a manner admirably adapted to our nature sanctified ; and these truths, applied by the Holy Ghost, are the instruments of sanctification and spiri- tual life, in a manner generically the same with, though in degree more energetic, than the written and spoken word. So, the guilt of the unbelieving communicant is not one inevitably damning; but it is the guilt of Christ's rejection ; it is the guilt of doing despite to the crucified Saviour by whom he should have been redeemed ; and this under circumstances of pecu- liar profanity. But the profanation varies according to the decree of conscious hypocrisy, and the motive of the act.

In conclusion of this head, I would remark that all these objections to that modified form of the real presence which Calvin held, apply a fortiori, to the grosser doctrines of the Lutheran and Romanist. The intelligent student can go over the application himself

Rome asserts most emphatically that the Lord's Supper is 6. Is the Supper a a proper and literal sacrifice ; in which the Sacrifice? Rome's elements, having become the very body. Arguments. ,^1^^^^ human spirit, and divinity of Christ,

are again offered to God upon the altar; and the transaction is thus a repetition of the very sacrifice of the cross, and avails to atone for the sins of the living, and of the dead in purgatory. And all this is dependent on the priest's intention. After the authority of Church Fathers and councils, which we set aside with a simple denial, Rome argues from Scripture, that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek ; but He presented as priest, bread and wine as an oblation to God, and then made Abraham communicate in it: That Christ is a "priest forever," and therefore must have a perpetually recurring sacrifice to pre- sent : That Malachi (i : ii), predicts the continuance of a Chris- tian sacrifice among the Gentiles, under the New Testament. That the words of institution : " This is My body which is broken for you," when taken literally, as they ought to be, imply a sacrifice, because the bread, having become the veri- table body, must be whatever the body is ; but the body is there a sacrifice. And that Paul (i Cor. x : 2i), contrasts the Lord's table with that of devils (i. e., idols). But the latter was confessedly a table of sacrifice, whence the former must be so. But the true argument with Rome for teaching this doctrine, is that of Acts xix : 25 ; they " know that by this craft they have their wealth." The great necessity of the human soul, awakened by remorse, or by the convincing Spirit of God, is atonement. By making this horrible and impious invention, Rome has brought

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 815

the guilty consciences of miserable sinners under her dominion, in order to make merchandise of their sin and fear. While nothing can transcend the unscripturalness of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I regard this of the sacrifice of the Mass as the most impious and mischievous of all the heresies of Rome.

In answer to her pretended scriptural arguments : There . is not one word of evidence that the bread

and wine of Melchizedek, if even an obla- tion, were a sacrifice. Does Rome mean to represent the sac- rament of the Lord's Supper as in exercise 1400 years before Christ had any body to commemorate ? Christ's priesthood is perpetual ; but it is perpetuated, according to Hebrews, in His function of intercession, which He continually performs in the heavenly Sanctuary. And besides : it is a queer way to per- petuate His priestly functions, by having a line of other priests offer Him as the victim of their sacrifices ! Rome replies, that her priest, in offering, acts in Christ's room, and speaks in His name. Such impiety is not strange on the part of Rome. We set aside the whole dream by demanding, where is the evidence that Christ has ever called one of His ministers a priest, or dep- utized to him this function ? The prediction of Malachi is obvi- ously to be explained by the remark, that he foretells the prev- alence of Christian institutions among the Gentiles, in terms and imagery borrowed from Jewish rites. The same bungling interpretation which Rome makes here, would equally prove from Is. ii : 1,4, that the great annual feasts at Jerusalem are to be personally attended by all the people of Europe, Aus- tralia, America, &c. ; and from Is. Ivi : 7, that not only the " un- bloody offering of the Mass," but literal burnt offerings shall be presented under the New Testament by the Gentiles. By dis- proving the transubstantiation of the bread, we have already overthrown the argument founded on it. And last : it is evi- dently an overstraining of the Apostle's words, to infer from I Cor. X : 21, that the thing literally eaten at the Lord's table must be a literal sacrifice. Since the elements eaten are the symbols of the divine sacrifice, there is in this an abundant ground for the Apostle's paraHel. And moreover, when the Pagans met after the sacrifice, to eat of the body of the victim, the table was not an altar, nor was the act a sacrificial one.

The direct refutation of this dogma has been so well exe-

^^ ^ ^ ^. „ cuted by Calvin, Turrettin. and other Prot- Heads of Direct Re- i. i. i.i -_ i.i • • , ,

f^,tation. estants, that nothnig more remams, than to

collect and state in their proper order the more important arguments. The silence of the Scripture is a iust objection to it ; because the burden of proof properly lies on those who assert the doctrine. The circumstances of the first administration of the Supper exclude all sacrificial charac- ter. No one will deny that this sacrament must bear the same meaning and character in all subsequent repetitions, which

8l6 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Christ gave it at first. But on that night, it could not be a sac- rifice, because His sacrifice was not yet made. Christ was as yet unslain. Nothing was offered to God ; but on the contrary, Christ gave the elements to man : whereas, in a proper sacri- fice, it is man that offers to God. Not one of the proper traits or characteristics of a true sacrifice is present. There is no vic- tim, shedding His blood ; and " without the shedding of blood is no remission," There is no sacrificial act whatever; and this is especially fatal to Romanists ; because the only oblation to God, which can by any pretext be found in the history of the institution in Scripture, is that of the eucharistic prayer. But, say they, the transubstantiation does not take place till after this, in the pronouncing of the words of institution. There is no death and consumption of a victim by fire ; for the only thing like a killing is the breaking of the bread : but according to Romanists, this occurred in our Saviour's institution, before the transubstantiation. Again : The mere fact that the Supper is a sacrament is incompatible with its being a sacrifice ; for the nature of the two is dissimilar. True, the passover was both, but this was at different stages. But we object with yet more emphasis, that the doctrine is impiously derogatory to Christ's one priesthood and sacrifice, and to the sufficiency thereof, as asserted in Scripture. Christ is sole priest, (i Tim. ii : 5; Heb. vii : 24; ix : 12), and He offers one sacrifice, which neither needs nor admits repetition. (Heb. vii : 27 ; ix : 25 ; x : i, 2, 10, 12, 14 and 26 with ix : 12-14).

Protestants deny the propriety of private communions.

because they deny that the Supper is a sac- ionkejected. WhyT' rifice. It is a commemoration of Christ's

death, and shows forth His death. There should therefore be fellow communicants to whom to show it forth, or at least spectators. It is a communion, representing, our membership in the common body of Christ. Hence to cel- ebrate it when no members are present to participate is an abuse. The motive for desiring private communion is usually superstitious, and therefore our Church does wisely in refusing it. The grounds on which Rome withholds the cup from the

^ ^ . ^ . laity may be seen stated in the Council of

8. Laity Entitled to t. , i -i. j • T^• i t^u 2.

the Cup. irent, and cited m Uick. Ihey are too

trivial to need refutation. It is enough to say that the assertion that the bread by itself is a whole sac- rament, because the blood is in the body, is false. For it is the very nature of the Lord's Supper to signify, that the blood is not in the body, having been poured out from it in death. We might justly ask : Why is not the bread alone sufficient for the priests also, if it is a whole sacrament ? The outrage upon Christ's institute is peculiarly glaring, because the injunction to give the cup to the communicants is as clear and positive as to observe the sacrament at all. And our Saviour, as though

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 817

foreseeing the abuse, in Mark xiv : 23, and Matt xxvi : 27, has emphatically declared that all who eat are also to drink. This innovation of Rome is comparatively modern ; being not more against the Word of God, than against the voice and usage of Christian antiquity. It presents one of the strongest examples of her insolent arrogance both towards her people and God. The true motive, doubtless, is, to exalt the priesthood into a superior caste.

9. For the answer to this, see Lectures on the Sacraments in General. Qu. lo.

SYLLABUS

1. Why does Death befall Justified persons ?

Dick, Lect. 80. Ridgley, Qu. 84. Knapp, Theol. § 147.

2. Review the Arguments for the Immortality of the soul.

Butler's Analogy, pt. i. Turrettin, Loc. v, Qu. 14. Dick as above. Ridgley, Qu. 86. Breckinridge's Theol., Vol. i. bk. i, ch. 6.

3. What benefits do believers receive at Death ? Is entire sanctification one of them?

Dick, Lect. 81. Ridgley, Qu. 86. Knapp, as above.

4. Are any Souls detained in any other place (as a Hades, &c.) than Heaven and Hell ?

Turrettin, Loc. xii, Qu. 11. Hodge, pt. iv, ch. i § i, 3. Knapp, as above.

5. Is the Soul Conscious and Active, between Death and the Resurrection? Hodge, as above ^ 2. Dick, Lect. 81. Ridgley, Qu. 86. Dr. Jno. Miller, Questions raised by the Bible, pt. i. " Last Things," by Dr. Gardiner Spring

jT^EATH is undoutedly a penal evil ; and not merely a natural law, as Socinians and Pelagians teach. This we I. Death is a Penal have already shown by the Bible, (Gen. Evil. Why Then In- ii : 17; iii ; 17-19; v : 3; Rom. V : 12, 14) flictedon the Justified? ^^^j ^y the obvious reasoning, that the benev- olence and righteousness, with the infinite power of God, would combine to prevent any suffering to His moral creatures while free from guilt. Man enters life now, subject to the whole pen- alty of death, including temporal physical evils, spiritual death, and bodily death ; and this is the consequence of Adam's fall through our federal connection with him. From spiritual death, all believers are delivered at their regeneration. Physical evils and bodily death remain ; and inasmuch as the latter was a most distinctive and emphatic retribution for sin, the question is, how it comes to be inflicted on those who are absolutely justified in Christ. On the one hand, bodily death was a penal infliction. On the other hand, we have taught that believers are justified from all guilt, and are required to render no penal

52*

SI 5 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

satisfaction whatever. (Rom. v : i ; Heb. x : 14, &c.) Yet all believers die ?

Now this question is very inadequately met by such views as these : That this anomaly is no greater swert' ^""^ '^'"' '^"" than many others in the divine dealings ; e. g., the continuance of imperfection and indwelling sin so many years in believers, or their subjection to the malice of evil men and demons. That the destruction of the body is necessary to a perfect sanctification ; a thing shown to be untrue in the cases of Enoch, Elijah, the human soul of Christ, and all the believers who shall be on earth at the last consummation ; or, that the natural law of mortality, and the rule of God's kingdom, that men must " walk by faith, not by sight," would both be violated, if so visible a difference were placed between saints and sinners, as the entire exemption of the former from bodily death. These are partial explanations. The true answer is, that although believers are fully justified, yet according to that plan of grace which God has seen fit to adopt, bodily death is a necessary and wholesome chastisement for the good of the believer's soul- If this postulate can be shown to be correct, the occurrence of death to the justified man will fall into the same class with all other paternal chas- tisements, and will receive the same explanation.

Let us then recall some principles which were established in our defence of our view of the Atone- c£sTisemems'!^'''"'''°^ "^^"t against Romanists, &c. First. A chas- tisement, while God's motive in it is only benevolent, does not cease to be, to the believer, a natural evil. We may call it a blessing in disguise ; but the Christian smart- ing under it feels, that if this language means that it is not a real evil, it is a mere play upon words. The accurate statement is, that God wisely and kindly exercises in chastisements His divine prerogative of bringing good out of evil. Bodily death does not cease to be to the believer a real natural evil in itself, and to be feared and felt as such. Second. Hence, chastise- ment is a means of spiritual benefit appropriate only to sinning children of God. It would not be just, for instance, that God should adopt chastisements as a means to advance Gabriel, who never had any guilt, to some higher stage of sanctified capaci- ties and blessedness ; because where there is no guilt there is no suffering. Third. Still, God's motive in chastising the believer is not at all retributive, but wholly beneficent ; whereas His retributions of the guilty are intended, not primarily to benefit them, but to satisfy righteousness. Here then is the distinctive difference between Rome and us ; that we hold, while the sufferings endured in chastisements have a reference to our sin- ful and guilty condition, in the believer's case they are neither paid by him, nor received by God, as any penal satisfaction whatever for guilt : that satisfaction is wholly paid by our surety.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 819

Heb. xii : 6-10 ; Rom. viii : 18-28 ; 2 Cor. iv : 17 : with Rom. viii : 33 ; Ps. ciii : 12 ; Micah vii : 19. Whereas, Rome teaches that penitential sufferings of behevers go to complete the actual penal satisfaction for the reatum pcBiice, left incomplete by Christ.

Fourth. The use of such means of sanctificationis compatible

with divine justice, although an infinite vica- How Compatible with ^.j^^g satisfaction is made for our guilt by out Satisfaction for Sin. • • . •

surety ; because, as we saw, a vicarious satis- faction is not a commercial equivalent for our guilt; a legal ten-' der such as brings our Divine Creditor under a righteous obli- gation to cancel our whole indebtedness. But His acceptance of it as a legal satisfaction was, on His part, an act of pure grace ; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than, God is pleased to allow it. And we learn from His word, that He has been pleased to accept it just thus far ; that the believer shall be required to pay no more penal satisfaction to the broken law ; yet shall be liable to such suffer- ing of chastisements as shall be wholesome for his own improve- ment, and appropriate to his sinning condition.

Now then, does bodily death subserve the purposes of a

wholesome and sanctifying chastisement ? fyingSiseme'nt.^'^'' I answer, most eminently. The prospect of

it serves, from the earliest day when it begins to stir the sinner's conscience to a wholesome seriousness, through all his convictions, conversion, Christian warfare, to humble the proud soul, to mortify carnality, to check pride, to foster spiritual mindedness. It is the fact that sicknesses are premonitions of death, which make them active means of sancti- fication. Bereavements through the death of friends form another valuable class of disciplinary sufferings. Now that death may be actually in prospect, death must actually occur. And when the closing scene approaches, no doubt in every case where the believer is conscious, the pains of its approach, the solemn thoughts and emotions it suggests, are all used by the Holy Ghost as powerful means of sanctification to ripen the soul rapidly for Heaven. I doubt not, that when we take into view the whole moral influences of the life-long prospect of our own deaths, the prospect and occurrence of bereavement by death of friends, the pungent efficiency given to sickness by its <:onnection with death, as well as the actual influences of the closing scene, we shall see that all other chastisements put together, are far less efficacious in checking inordinate affection and sanctifying the soul : yea, that without this, there would be no efficacious chastisement at all left in the world. A race of sinners must be a race of mortals ; Death is the only check (of the nature of means) potent enough to prevent depravity from breaking out with a power which would make the state of the world perfectly intolerable ! Another reason for inflicting death

820 SYLLABUS AXD NOTES

on justified believers may be found in i Peter iv : 12, 13. It is the supreme test of the power of faith. Death is the greatest of temporal and natural evils, abhorrent to the strongest instincts of man's nature, and involving the maximum of natural losses and privations. If faith and grace can overcome this enemy, and extract his sting, then indeed have we a manifestation of their virtue, which is transcendent. As Christ, our Captain of salvation, gave that supreme evidence of His love and devotion, so it is most appropriate that His people should present the •like evidence of the power of His Spirit and principles in them. It is thus we become " partakers of His sufferings," and assist in signalizing His victory over death.

Yet, as the afflictions of the righteous differ much from

2. Death a Means of the torments of the wicked, this is peculiarly Glory to Saint, Unmix- true of their deaths. To the impenitent man, ed Curse to Sinner. jg^^i-^ jg f^^^ of ^^e sting of sin. In the case

of the saint, this sting is extracted by redemption. There may not be the abounding triumphs of spiritual joy ; but if the believer is conscious, he usually enjoys a peace, which controls and calms the agitations of the natural feelings recoiling from> death. In the case of the sinner, the horror of dying is made up of two sets of feelings, the instinctive love of life, with the natural affections which tie him to the earth ; and evil con- science with dread of future retributions. And the latter is often predominant in the sinner's anguish. But in the case of the saint it is removed ; and death is only an evil in the appre- hension of the former feelings. Second : to the sinner, death is the beginning of his utter misery; to the saint it is the usher, (a dreaded one indeed) into his real blessedness. By it the death in sins and bondage of depravity are fixed upon the sinner irrevocably : but the saint is delivered by it from all his indwell- ing sins. Death removes the sinner forever from God, from partial gospel privileges and communions. But to the saint, it is the means of breaking down the veil, and introducing him into the full fruition and vision of God.

See Shorter Cat. Qu. 37. Three benefits are here men-

3. Benefits Received tioned as received from Christ at the believ- by Saint at Death— i. er's death : perfect sanctification, imniediate Complete Sanctification. entrance into glory, and the prospect of a bodily resurrectiorr.

We take up here, the first, postponing the others for sepa- rate discussion ; and assuming for the time, the implied truth of the immortality of the soul. The complete sanctification of believers at death would hardly be denied by any, who admitted that their souls entered at once into the place of our Saviour's glorified residence, and of God's visible throne. It is those who teach a separate state, a transmigration, or Hades, or pur- gatory, or sleep in the grave, who deny the immediate sanctifi- cation of souls. For, the attributes of God and heaven are

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 821

such as obviously to require perfect purity of all who dwell there. Let the student bear this in mind, and have in view the truth to be hereafter established, that the souls of believers '• do immediately pass into glory." The place is holy, and debars the approach of all moral impurity. (Rev. xxi : 27). The inhabitants, the holy angels are pure, and could not appro- priately admit the companionship of one tainted with indwelling sin. True ; they now fly forth to " minister to them who shall be the heirs of salvation ;" but this is not a companionship. The King of that world is too pure to receive sinners to His bosom. He does indeed condescend, by His Holy Ghost, into the pol- luted breasts of sinners on earth ; but this is a far different thing from a public, full and final admission of sin into the place of His holiness. See i Peter i : 15, 16 ; Ps. v : 4 : xv : 2 ; Is. vi : 5. The blessedness of the redeemed is incompatible with ajiy remaining imperfection (Rev. xxi : 4). For wherever there is sin, there must be suffering. And last, this glorious truth is plainly asserted in the word of God. Heb. xii : 23 ; Eph. v : 27 ; I John iii : 2.

How this sanctification is wrought, we may not tell. Recall the remark made when sanctification was dis- Body's De^a'th!'^^' ^^ ^"ssed ; that it is not mysticism, nor gnosti- ^ cism, nor asceticism, to ascribe its completion

to our release from the body, as a convenient occasion. Bodily appetites are the occasions of the larger part of most men's sins : as the bodily members are the instruments of all their overt sins. How natural, then, that when these are removed, God should finally remove sin ? The agent of this work is still, no doubt, the Holy Spirit.

I have already remarked that all these views presuppose that immo.*-tality which is brought to light

■n°„'.s.e'a"chtalrTau',;; '" <1>'= g°=Pf'; I' ^'^' f'^^Y^^ seemed to me that the Bible treats the question of man's immortality, as it does that of God's existence ; assumes it as an undisputed postulate. Hence the debate urged by War- burton and his opposers, whether Moses taught a future exist- ence, seems to me preposterous. To dispute that he did, flies into the very teeth of Scripture. (Matt, xxii : 32 ; Heb. ii : 16, 26 ; and in Pentateuch, Gen. v : 22, 24 ; Gen. xv : 15 ; xxv : S ; XXXV : 29 ; xxxvii : 35 ; Jude : 14, 15 ; Numb, xx : 24 ; xxvii : 13. All religion and even aU morality imply a future existence. But our Saviour, whose purpose it was to reaffirm the truths of Old Testament Revelation, and of natural Religion, which had been obscured by the perverse skepticism of men, does teach man's immortality with peculiar distinctness and fullness. The reader may consult for instance. Matt, x : 28 ; Luke xvi : 26 ; Matt, xx : 33 ; xxv : to the end ; Jno. v : 24 ; viii : 51 : xi : 25 ; xii : 25 ; 2 Cor. v : i-io ; i Cor. xv : &c. This may perhaps be a part of the Apostle's meaning, when he

822 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

says, (2 Tim. i : 10) that Christ " hath brought hfe and immor- tality to Hght in the gospel." But it would certainly be a great abuse of his meaning, to understand from him that Christ v/as the first adequately to teach that there is an immortal existence, Paul speaks rather, as the context clearly shows, (" hath abol- ished death,") of spiritual life and a happy immortality which Christianity procures. And it is the glory of the religion of the Bible to have clearly made this known to man.

It may be well to note that the immortality of the Bible is that of the whole man, body and soul ; and andBody!' *""' °^ ^"""^ herein God's word transcends entirely all the guesses of natural reason. And this future existence implies the continuance of our consciousness, memory, mental, and personal identity ; of the same soul in the same body, (after the resurrection). There must be also the essential and characteristic exercises of our reasonable and moral nature, with an unbroken continuity. For if the being who is to live, and be affected with weal or woe by my conduct here, is not the /, who now act, and hope, and fear, that future existence is of small moment to me.

It may not be amiss here, to review the amount of light which natural reason has been able to collect

Rational Arguments concerning man's future existence. Since the iveviewed. . ^

resurrection of the body is purely a doc- trine of revelation, of which reason could not have any surmise (witness the Pagan philosophies), the question must be discussed rationally as a question concerning the immortality of the soul only. All that natural experience ever sees of. the body is its death, dissolution, and seemingly irreparable destruction. But since the soul is the true seat of sensation, knowledge, emotion, merit, and will, the assertion of its immortality is far the most important doctrine of man's future existe'nce. The various opinions of men on this subject, who had no revelation, maybe seen stated in Knapp'sTheol. § 149, viz : materialism (Epicurus,) transmigrations, ( Brahmins Pythagoras, and some Jews, ) re- absorption into the iiav (Stoic Pantheists), and separate dis- embodied immortality (Plato, &c). Among the many reason- ings advanced by ancients and moderns, these following seem to me to have probable weight.

(a) The consensus populoruni, especially v/hen we consider how naturally man's sensuous nature and evil conscience might incline him to neglect the truth.

(b) The analogy of the fact, that man and all other living things obviously experience several stages ; first the foetus, then infant, then adult. It is natural to expect other stages. (Butler).

(c) A present existence raises a presumption of continued existence, (as the sun's rising, that it will rise again) unless there is something in the body's dissolution to destroy the probability. But is there ? No. For body sleeps while soul wakes. Body

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 823

may waste, fatten, be amputated, undergo flux of particles, loss of sensible organs, while soul remains identical. In sensation, the soul only uses the organs of sense, as one might feel with a stick, or see through a glass. The more essential operations of spirit, conception, memory, comparison, reasoning, &:c., are only related to bodily functions, if at all ; as causes to effects : whence we conclude that the essential subsistence of the soul is independent of the body. (Butler).

(d) The soul is simple, a monad, as is proved by conscious- ness. But there is not a particle of analogy, in the universe, to show that it is probable God will annihilate any substance He has created. The only .instances of destruction we see, are those of disorganization of the complex. (Butler : Brown).

(e) The soul has higher powers than any of God's terres- trial works ; strange that the brute, earth, and even elephants, eagles, and geese should be more long-lived ! It has a capacity for mental and moral development beyond any which it attains in this life. God has ordained that all things else should fulfill the ends of their existence. It can know and glorify God : strange that God, making all things for His own glory, should make His rational servants such that the honour derived from them must utterly terminate..

(f ) Conscience points directly to a superior moral Ruler, and a future existence, with its retributions.

(g) The unequal distribution of retributions here on earth, coupled with our confidence in the righteousness of God, compels a belief in a future existence, where all shall be equalized.

We have asserted it, as the doctrine of the Bible, that the souls of believers do pass immediately me'diateStarer^''*"" into glory. In opposition to this, there are some, among the professed believers in the Bible, who hold some kind of intermediate state, in which the souls of all, saints and sinners, are detained. The opinions of this kind may be ranked under three heads: i. That of the Romish Purgatory, which has been already discussed. 2. That of the Jewish Hades, held by some Rabbins and Prelatists, early and modern ; and 3d. That of the ancient Socinians and modern Thomasites, who hold that the soul will sleep uncon- scious until the body's resurrection. The second of these opinions will be the subject of the present section ; and the the third, of the fifth and last.

The Jewish doctrine seems to have been, that the souls of . departed men do not pass at once into their

jewisi ociine. ultimate abode ; but into the invisible world, "Acdrj<; 7i^^^' where they await their final doom, until the final con- summation, in a state of partial and negative blessedness or misery, respectively. This Hades has two departments, that of the blessed, Paradise, or the Bosom of Abraham, and that of

824 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the lost, Tartarus. But this Paradise is far short of the heavens proper in blessedness, as well as different in locality, and this Tartarus far less intolerable than Gehenna, or hell proper. The following passages were supposed by them to favor this opinion : Gen. xxxvii : 35 ; xlii : 38; "Go down to Hades;" 1 Samuel xxviii : li, 14 and 19 : "An old man cometh up," " Be with me to-morrow :" Zech. ix : 1 1 ; where it is supposed the souls are in a place hke a dry pit ; Ps. vi ; 5 ; Ixxxviii : 10 ; cxv : 17; cxliii : 3 ; where the state of the dead is described seem- ingly as a senseless and negative one. And some Papists have supposed that their kindred notion of a Livibus patriim found support in Luke xvi : 23 ; in that Dives and Lazarus seem to be near enough to each other, to converse. This, they suppose, proves that both are in the same " under-world." They quote also Eccles. ix : 5,6, and similar passages, which seem to teach the state of the dead to be one of inactivity and negation.

The reply to this Jewish and patristic notion must proceed

on the postulate, that they both misunder- Intermediate State g^^j^^ ^j^g Scriptures ; the Fathers and Pre- JDiscusscd. ^

latists following the errors of the Rabbins.

One general remark to be made is, that when the Old Testa- ment seems to speak of the spirit-world, as a place of darkness and inaction, it evidently speaks " ad sensiuny It is thus that the dead appear to us : As to terrestrial interests, their activities and knowledge are ended. These passages are not to be strained to deny that souls enter upon new, spiritual activi- ties, beyond the sphere of human experience.

1. The general drift of Scriptures certainly teaches, that at death man's probation ends. " As the tree falleth, so it shall lie." See also, Rev. xxii : ii. Now, why should the future career and destiny of souls be thus held in abeyance and sus- pense, so many ages after probation ends ? The intrinsic activ- ity of the soul, as well as the propriety of the result, makes it probable that the reward, either for good or evil, will begin as soon as it is completely secured.

2. The death of believers is, in both Testaments, repre- sented as an entrance upon their rest. See, for instance, Is. Ivii : I, 2. So the death of sinners is the beginning of their judgment. Heb. ix : 27.

3. To this agree the expectations of the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. V : 4, 8 ; Phil, i : 21-24. To be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." He anticipates no interval. Again : while to live is Christ to him ; "to die is gain." Were the Rabbinical doctrine true, death, as compared with a Chris- tian and fruitful life, would be comparative loss. Especially would it have been impossible for the apostle to be " in a strait," betwixt the desires of living and dying, if he had sup- posed that the choice was between the active life of an apostle, yielding constant good to men and glory to God, as well as

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 825

rich enjoyment, amidst his tribulations, of spiritual happiness ; and the empty, silent, useless, expectant existence of a melan- choly ghost in the Hades of the fanciful Jews.

4. This is expressly confirmed by the history of the dead saints which is given us in Scripture. On the mount of trans- figuration, Moses and Elijah are seen already in glory. Of Moses, at least it may be said, that he died a real corporeal death. Again : in Luke xvi : 22 to end. Lazarus is " in Abraham's bosom," he " is comforted ; " while Dives is in the fire of " torment," in the actual receipt of his penal retribution. When we compare Matt, viii : 11, we see that Abraham is in "the kingdom of heaven " which here, evidently means heaven. Again : Christ promises the converted robber : " This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." That Paradise is the heaven of bliss, and not some limbus in a Jewish Hades, is clear from 2 Cor. xii : 2-4, and Rev. ii : .7. It is the same as the " third heaven." It is the place where Christ abides in glory, and the tree of life is found. So in Rev. xiv : 13. Those who die in the Lord are blessed from the date of their death (for such is the only tenable rendering of the " from henceforth," d-~ (iorc). So Heb. xii : 23, the spirits of the just were already made per- fect, and denizens, with the angels, of "the city of the living ■God, the heavenly Jerusalem," when that Epistle was written.

The consistent exposition of the much criticized passage, I Peter, iii : 19, 20, may be seen, Lect. 38.

The other unscriptural theory which we promised to notice is, that the soul sleeps, or remains of Ae Soul]^^ ° ^^"^ without consciousness ; or at least, without external activities, from death to the resur- rection. This is held in several forms. The early followers of Socinus, while not denying to the human spirit all conscious- ness during its disembodied state, taught that, without its sense- organs, it could have no intercourse with any being out of itself. Thus, they supposed it spent the interval in a state of fruitless insulation. Again, there have been many, who while asserting fully the substantive existence of spirit as distinct from matter, supposed that it could not exist or act separate from matter. They taught that finite spirit cannot be related to space, or be possessed of any consciousness, save through its incorporation. Hence they must either hold that spirit, immediately upon the death of the body, is united to an etherial, but still, an organ- ized investment ; as Swedenborg, (who also taught that the soul never receives, by any farther resurrection, any other incorpora- tion) or they hold that all spiritual functions must remain in abeyance, until the bodily organism is reconstructed. To this view, even Isaac Taylor and Archbishop Whately seem to have leaned. Others, again, are materialists : They regard spirit not as a substance, but only as a function. If this be all, then of course, when the material structure shall be dissolved, spirit

826 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

will cease, as truly as sound when the harp-string is burned. The modern speculations of the Evolutionists, who are also materialists, seek to remove the just odium attaching to their doctrine, by elevating the matter with which they have identi- fied our spirits into something immaterial. Having denied the substantiality of spirit, they proceed also to deny the substanti- ality of matter : and reduce both to forms of energy proceeding (if they be theists) as they say, from God; or, (if they be atheists) merely different modifications of one eternal, self- existent Force. The doctrine of this school is : that the earli- est " dust of the earth is a divine efficiency ; and then life another ; and then thought another ; and then conscience more ; all bred of God, and yet dependent back the one upon the other." This obviously, if it is not atheism, is pantheism ; for the only personality recognized, if any be ^P '^^' recognized, is God's ? Those who attempt to

reconcile these speculations with Scripture, although they flout the immortality of the soul, yet promise us a personal, or incor- porate immortality, through a bodily resurrection guaranteed by God, and omnipotently wrought at Christ's final advent. Such an expectation is obviously an excrescence on their sys- tem, so heterogeneous to it, that we may very confidently anticipate its final rejection by those who now hold it. The logical and natural sequel to be drawn from their scheme is annihilation. Once teach men there is no substantive spirit, by whose mental identity the continuity of our being is preserved, while the body is scattered in dust ; and the promise of a res- surrection becomes to them meaningless and absurd. The whole basis for future rewards and penalties is gone. There is no more real identity between the mind that sinned here, and the new mind that arises there, than there is between the v/eed of this year bred of the vegetable mould which resulted from the rotting of the weed of last year. It is not one weeil but two.

I shall not consume time by repeating the evidences of man's substantive spirituality ; inasmuch as they have been twice briefly stated in this course, and more fully and impreg- nably established in my Discussion of the Sensualistic Philoso- phy of the Nineteenth Century. There are those, however, who admitting that spirit is a distinct substance, hold that, from the necessity of its nature, it must be either infinite, or incor- porate in some organism, either carnal or ethereal. Says Isaac Taylor : it is impossible to assign spirit its ubi, without connect- ing it with a body ; because locality is itself a mode of exten- sion ; and thus, in ascribing a 7ibi to pure spirit, we are ascrib- ing extension to it. We might justly ask : if the last assertion were true, how would the matter be helped by assigning this spirit its nbi in a body occupj'ing a finite portion of space ?• The extended body is more certainly burdened with the attrib-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 82/

utes of extension, than the finite portion of space it occupies; so that, were there any real difficulty in the point, it would be more difficult for us to believe the unextended spirit localized in the extended body, than in the vacant, finite portion of space occupied thereby. But Taylor's whole difficulty has arisen from the oversight of a distinction which Turrettin has long ago given. Finite spirit of course does not occupy space cir- cumscriptively ; as the measure of corn fills the bushel-measure, and assumes its cylindrical shape. But spirit may be in space definitively. The mathematical point has neither length, breadth, nor thickness : yet surely none will deny to it position in space ; since the point is the first rudiment of the whole science of dimensions!

No man has ever had experience of cognitions and con- sciousness apart from his sense-organs. Of course, then, no man can picture to himself how these mental functions are to pro- ceed in the disembodied state. But this is wholly another thing from proving either consciousness, or even objective percep- tions, impossible for a mind not incorporate. Is intelligence the faculty of the sense-organs ; or of the mind which uses them ? Surely of the latter! Then the a priori probabi!ity is wholly in favour of the mind's exercising its own faculty (in some new way) when deprived of these instruments. If my sense of touch is able, through the intervention of a stick, to cognize a solid resisting object a yard distant, does anybody suppose that I will have any more difficulty in ascertaining its resistance to my tactual sense, without the stick, by my hand alone ? So, it is obviously possible, that my intelligence may only get the nearer to its object, by the removal of its present instrument, the sense- organ.

It is too plain to need any elaboration that those who phil- osophize as do all our opponents, must deny the whole teach- ing of the Scriptures concerning the angels. If they are pure spirits, their existence, cognitions, and activities contradict every assertion these writers advance.

The sleep of the soul is inferred from such Scriptures as Scriptural Argu- these: Death is called a sleep. The resur- ments for the Sleep of rection promised is frequently that of the the Soul. man, and not of his body merely. In the

famous chapter, i Cor. xv, the apostle argues for the resurrec- tion, as though it were the Christian's only alternative hope against annihilation. See verses i8, 19, 29-32. This implies, they plead ; that the ressurrection is to be the recall of both soul and body out of the grave. For, were the doctrine of the soul's separate immortality true, the apostle would have seen in that a substantial ground for hope beyond the grave, whether the body be raised or not.

I reply, that the phenomena of death, the absolute quies-

828 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

cence of the corpse, the withdrawal of the

These Perversions of i r n i j ■ j t- •

Scripture Answered. ^°^^ irom all known and experienced activi- ties of this life, and its entrance upon its heavenly rest, are abundantly sufficient to justify the calling of a Christian death " a sleep," consistently with the Bible-doc- trine of the separate activity of the soul. This is evidently what the Scriptures mean by the figure. That the man, and not the body, is so often spoken of as resurrected, is easily ex- plained by that natural figure, by which sensuous beings, as we all are, speak of a corpse as "a man." But all doubt is cleared away, by such passages as Phil, iii : 2i. There, the resurrec- tion is declared to be a " changing of our vile body, and fash- ioning of it like unto His glorious body." i Cor. xv : 42. That which " is sown in corruption," is" raised in incorruption." What can this be, but the body? In verse 42. "We have borne the image of the earthy." Wherein ? In that we have animal and perishable bodies. Then the ego and the body which it " has borne," are distinct. The ingenious cavil from verses 18, 19, and 29 to 32, is easily solved by the following facts : The final immortality which the Bible teaches is, as we have distinctly stated, not that of souls disembodied, but of incorporate men. Hence it was altogether natural for the apostle to speak of our prospect for an immortality as identi- cal with that of a resurrection. But again, (what is far more important), the apostle's argument was proceeding upon these truths : that the reality of Christ's resurrection, on one hand, was vital to all hope of a redeemed immortality for us in any form. See verses 12 to 18. But on the other hand, the fact of Christ's resurrection involves the truth, that we also shall rise as He did. Under this state of the argument, it is thoroughly consistent with our doctrine, that the apostle should argue as he did. The apostle does argue, that practically, the believer's resurrection is his only alternative hope against " perishing," but he does not argue that it is his only alternative hope against annihilation. The latter idea is nowhere enter- tained as an alternative.

In proof that ransomed souls are- not detained in uncon- sciousness in the grave, we advance posi- proofs.'^^^^ -cnptuie- ^j^g^y ^^^ those texts which show us such souls already in heaven. Here all the pas- sages quoted under the former head apply : We need not con- sume time in repeating them. We add, that the protomartyr, Stephen, when dying said, with the full light of inspiration in his mind : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." He certainly ex- pected an immediate glorification with Christ. See Acts vii : 59. So, in Matt, x : 28, the distinction of spirit and body is indispu- tably made ; and those who truly fear God are taught that though the persecutor may kill the body, the soul is happy in Christ. In Rev. iv : 4, 6, with v : 9, John sees the redeemed

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 829

already amidst the raptures of heaven, in the persons of the twenty-four elders, and the four living creatures. So, in Rev. vi : 9 to II, the souls of the martyrs were seen under (or below) the altar, in the full possession of their intelligence and activity, and adorned with their white robes. All this was before the resurrection.

It is the glory of the gospel, that it gives a victory over ' death. Over the true man, the being who

Never feels' Death. ^ feels, and hopes and fears, it has no domin- ion. The body alone falls under its stroke ; but when it does so, it is unconscious of that stroke. What- ever there may be in the grave, with its gloom and worm, that is repulsive to man ; with all that the true Ego has no part. While the worms destroy the unconscious flesh, the conscious spirit has soared away to the light and rest of its Saviour's bosom.

SYLLABUS

1. What were the opinions of the ancient Heathens, and what of the Jews, on this subject? Does nature furnisli any analogy in favor of it ?

Dr. Christian Knapp, § 151. Hodge Theol., pt. iv, g i, 2. Dick, Lect. 82.

2. State the precise meaning of the Scripture doctine. What will be the quali- ties of our resurrection bodies ?

Turrettin, Loc. xx, Qu. i, 2, 9. Knapp, ^ 152. 153. Dick, Lect. 82.

3. Will the resurrection bodies be the same which men have now ? In what sense the same ? Discuss objections.

Turrettin Qu. 2. Dick, Lect. 82. Watson's Theol. Inst., ch. 29.

4. Prove the doctrine of the Resurrection, from the Old Testament ; from the New.

Turrettin, Qu. I. Dick, Lect. 82.

5. How is the resurrection of the Saints, and how is that of sinners, related to the i-esurrection of Christ ?

Dick, Lect. 82. Breckinridge Theol., Vol. i, bk, i, ch. 6,

6. What will be the time ? Will there be a double resurrection ?

Turrettin, Qu. 3. Dick. Lect. 82. Scott, Com. on Rev., ch. 20. Brown's Second Advent. Knapp, ^ 154. Hodge, as above, chs. 3, 4. See on whole, Ridgley, Qu. 87. Geo. Bush on the Resurrection. Davies' Sermons. Young's Last Day.

' I ^THE definite philosophic speculations among the ancient heathen all discarded the doctrine of a proper resurrec- tion ; so that the Bible stands alone in l;^^!^^^^. acknowledging the share of the body in man s immortality. It is true that the poets (Hesiod, Homer, Virgil) expressing the popular and tradition- ary belief, (in this case, as in that of the soul's immortality, less incorrect than the philosopher's speculations), speak of the

830 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

future life as a bodily one, of members, food, labours, &c., in Tartarus and Elysium. But it is difficult to say how far these sensuous representations of the future existence were due to mere inaccuracy and grossness of conception, or how far to perspicuous ideas of a bodily existence conjoined with the spirit- ual. The Brahmins speak of many transmigrations and incar- nations, of their deified men ; but none of them are resurrec- tions proper. The Pythagoreans and Platonists dreamed of an 6'//^ij.a, an etherial, semi-spiritual investment, which the glorified spirit, after its metempsychoses are finished, develops for itself. The pantheistic sects, whether Buddhists or Stoics, of course utterly rejected the idea of a bodily existence after death, when they denied even a personal existence of the soul.

But the Jews, with the exception of the Sadducees and Essenses, seem to have held firmly to the

What Tews Believed j . • -nt t • 1

it ■^ doctrine. JNor can 1 see any evidence, ex-

cept the prejudice of hypothesis and fancy, for the notion of Knapp, and many Germans, that their behef in this doctrine dated only from the time of the Babylonish captivity. There is no historical evidence. If the proof-texts of the earlier Hebrew Scriptures are perversely explained away, and those of the Maccabees, &c., admitted, there is some show of plausibility. But it is far better reasoning to say that this unquestioning belief in the doctrine by the Jews, is evidence that they understood their earlier as well as their later Scrip- tures to teach it. The evidence of the state of opinion among them, and especially among the Pharisees, is found in their uninspired waitings : 2 Mac. vii : 9, &c., xii : 43, 45 ; Josephus and Philo, and in New Testament allusions to their ideas. See Matt, xxii ; Luke xx ; John xi : 24 ; Acts xxiii : 6, % ; Heb. xi : 35. But the doctrine was a subject of mocking skepticism to most of the speculative Pagans ; as the interlocutor in Minu- tius FeHx' Octavius, Pliny, jr., Lucian, Celsus, &c. See Acts xvii : 32 ; xxvi : 8, 24.

Hence, we may infer that the doctrine of the resurrection is purely one of revelation. Analogies and ^^ No Natural Proofs probable arguments have been sought in favor of it, as by the early fathers and later waiters ; but while some rise in dignity above the fable of the Phoenix, non2 of them can claim to be demonbtrations. The fact that all nature moves in cycles, restoring a state of things again which had passed away ; that the trees bud after the sterility and mimic death of winter ; that moons wax again after they have waned ; that sun and stars, after setting in the west, rise again in the east; that seeds germinate and reproduce their kind ; can scarcely be called a proper analogy ; for in all these cases, there is no proper destruction, by a disorganization of atoms, but a mere return of the same complex body, without a moment's breach of its organic unity, into the same state in

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 83 1

which it had previously been, If we were perfectly honest, we should rather admit that the proper analogies of nature are against the doctrine ; for when a seed germinates that particu- lar seed is produced no more ; there is, in what comes from it, only a generic, not a numerical identity. When the tree really perishes, its mould and moisture and gases are never recon- structed into that same tree, but pass irrevocably into other vegetable forms. Dick supposes that the argument said to have been stated B. C. 450, by Phocylides, the Milesian, is more plausible ; that inasmuch as God's wisdom led Him to introduce a gemis of rational beings, of body and spirit combined, the same wisdom will always lead him to perpetuate that kind. But if, after the soul's departure, the body were never reanimated, man would become simply an inferior angel, and the gemis would be obliterated. To this, also, we may reply ; that this argument is not valid until it is also shown that the wisdom, which called this gemis of complex beings into existence, will not be satisfied by its temporary continuance as a separate gemis. But this we can never prove by mere reason. For in- stance : the same reasoning would prove equally well, both an immortality and a bodily resurrection, for any of the genera of brutes ! Another argument is presented by Turrettin from the justice of God, which, if possessed of feeble weight by itself, at least has the advantage of harmonizing with Bible represen- tations. It is, that the justice of God is more appropriately satisfied, by punishing and rewarding souls in the very bodies, and with the whole personal identity, with which they sinned (Comp. 2 Cor. v : lo) or obeyed.

In Scripture the image of a resurrection, a.\^daraacz, is undoubtedly used sometimes in a figurative

2. True Meaning of gg^se, to describe regeneration, (John v : 25 ; Kesurrection. ' . ^ . ^-'. ^

Kph. v : 14,) and sometmies, restoration from

calamity and captivity to prosperity and joy. (Ezek. xxxvii :

12 : Is. xxvi : 19). But it is equally certain that the words are

intended to be used in a literal sense, of the restoration of the

same body that dies to life, by its reunion to the soul. This

then is the doctrine. For when the resurrection of the dead,

{utxri(7)v) of those that are in their graves, of those that sleep in

the dust of the earth, is declared, the sense is unequivocal.

Without at this time particularizing Scripture proofs, we assert

that they mean to describe a bodily existence as literally as

when they speak of man's soul in this life, as residing in a body ;

and this, though wonderfully changed in qualities, the same

body, in the proper, honest sense of the word same, which the .

soul laid down at death. This resurrection will embrace all the

individuals of the human race, good and bad, except those

whose bodies have already passed into heaven, and those of the

last generation, who will be alive on the earth at the last trump.

But on the bodies of these the resurrection change will pass,

832 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

though they do not die. The signal of this resurrection is to- be the " last trump," an expression probably taken from the transactions at Sinai; (Exod. xix : 16, 19 ; cf. Heb. xii : 26), which may, very possibly, be some literal, audible summons, sounded through the whole atmosphere of the world. But the agent will be Christ, by His direct and almighty power, with the Holy Ghost.

The qualities of the resurrection bodies of the saints are described in i Cor. xv : 42, 50, with as much reSon Bodie°s^. ^'''"'" particularity, probably, as we can compre- hend. Whereas the body is buried in a state of dissolution ; it is raised indissoluble, no longer liable to dis- organization, by separation of particles, either because pro- tected therefrom by the special power of God, or by the absence of assailing chemical forces. It is buried, disfigured and loath- some. It will be raised beautiful. Since it is a literal material body that is raised, it is far the most natural to suppose that the glory predicated of it, is literal, material beauty. As to its kind, see Matt, xiii : 43 ; Phil, iii : 21, with Rev. i : 13, 14. Some may think that it is unworthy of God's redemption to suppose it conferring an advantage so trivial and sensuous as personal beauty. But is not this a remnant of that Gnostic or Neo-Pla- tonic asceticism, which cast off the body itself as too worthless to be an object of redeeming power? We know that sanctified affections now always beautify and ennoble the countenance. See Exod. xxxiv : 29, 30. And if God did not deem it too trivial for His attention, to clothe the landscape with verdure, to cast every form of nature in lines of grace, to dye the skies with purest azure, and to paint the sun and stars with splendour, in order to gratify the eyes of His children here, we may assume that He will condescend to beautify even the bodies of His saints, in that world where all is made perfect. Next, the body is buried in weakness ; it has just given -the crowning evidence of feebleness, by yielding to death. It will be raised in immor- tal vigour, so as to perform its functions with perfect facility, and without fatigue.

And last ; it is buried an animal body ; i. e., this is the "Natural Body" character it has hitherto had. The aMfia and "Spiritual Body;" ^^'r/r/lv^ is Unfortunately translated "natural body" in the English version. The Apostle here evidently avails himself of the popular Greek distinction, growing out of the currency of Pythagorean and Platonic phi- losophy, to express his distinction, without meaning to endorse their psychology. The aioii.a (l"jyr/.o\^ is evidently the body as characterized chiefly by its animal functions. What these are, there can be little doubt, if we keep in mind the established Greek sense of the 4"-''/.'^> viz : the functions of the appetite and sense. Then the aiiiiw. rz'ueoixa.Taoi^ must mean not a body now material, as the Swedenborgians, &c., claim (a positive contra-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 833

diction and impossibiJity), but a body actuated only by pro- cesses of intellection and moral affection ; for these, Paul's read- ers supposed were the proper processes of the -vvjpia or vob^. But the Apostle vs. 44, 50, defines his own meaning. To show that " there is an animal body, and a spiritual body ;" that it is no iancy nor impossibility ,*he points to the fact that such have already existed, in the case of Adam and his natural seed, and of Christ. And as we were federally connected, first with Adam, and then with Christ, we bear first the animal body, ( Adam's ) and then the spiritual ( Christ's ). And Christ's humanity also, during His humihation, passed through that first stage, to the second ; because he assumed all the innocent weaknesses and affections of a literal man. Our <Jcou.a -vvjiw.- Tcy.ov^ then, is defined to be what Christ's glorified body now in Heaven is. Complete this definition by what we find in Matt. xxii : 30. The spiritual body then, is one occupied and actu- ated only by the spiritual processes of a sanctified soul ; but which neither smarts with pain, nor feels .fatigue, nor has appe- tites, nor takes any literal, material supplies therefor.

It seems Qwtry way reasonable to suppose that while the bodies of the wicked will be raised without

oflSnir'°" ^°'^'^' ^^^ gl°^>' o^ splendour of the saints, they also will be no longer animal bodies, and will be endued with immortal vigour to endure.

The Scriptures plainly teach that our resurrection bodies will be the bodies we now have, only modified ;

Rdslt^Sool.*^^''*^''' t^^^t ^s- t^^at they will be substantially identi- cal. This follows from the divine justice, so far as it prompts God to work a resurrection. For if we have not the very body in which we sinned, when called to judg- ment, tliat "every man may receive the things done in the body," there will be no relevancy in the punishment, so far as it falls on the body. The same truth follows from the believer's union to Christ. If He redeemed our bodies, must they not be the very ones we have here? (i Cor. iii : 16 ; vi : 15). It appears evidently, from Christ's resurrection, which is the earnest, exemplar, and pledge of ours. For in His case, the body that was raised was the very one that died and was buried. But if, in our case, the body that dies is finally dissipated, and another is reconstructed, there is small resemblance indeed to our Saviour's resurrection. This leads us to remark, fourth, that the very words d.vlarr^iu, duda- To.at:: plainly imply the rearing of the same thing that fell ; otherwise there is an abuse of language in applying them to a proper creation. Last, the language of Scripture in Dan. xii ; 2 ; John V : 28, 29 : i Cor. xv : 21, 53, 54 ; i Thess. iv : 16 ; it is that which is " in the dust of the earth," " in the //v-^'/^s^ft," the vky.pot ; corpses, which is raised. It is " this mortal " which " puts on immortality." From the days of the Latin Fathers, and their speculative Pagan opposers, certain objections have 53*

834 . SYLLABUS AND NOTES

been pompously raised against such a resurrection, as though it were intrinsically absurd. They may be found reproduced by Geo. Bush on the Resurrection.

The general objection is from the incredible greatness of Objection From ^^^ work; that ^nce the particles that com- Wonderfulness, An- posed human bodies are scattered asunder swered. ]-,y almost every conceivable agency, fire,

winds, waters, birds and beasts of prey, mingled with the soil of the fields, and dissolved in the waters of the ocean, it is un- reasonable to expect they will be assembled again. We reply, (reserving the question whether a proper corporeal identity im- plies the presence of all the constituent particles ; of which more anon), that this objection is founded only on a denial of God's omnipotence, omniscience, and almighty power. The work of the resurrection does indeed present a most wondrous and glorious display of divine power. But to God all things are easy. We may briefly reply, that to all who believe in a spec- ial Providence, there is a standing and triumphant answer visi- ble to our eyes. It is in the existence of our present bodies. Are they not formed by God ? Are they not also formed from " the dust of the earth ? " And it is not any one hundred and fifty pounds of earth, which God moulds into a body of that weight; but there is a most wonderful, extensive, and nice selection of particles, where a million of atoms are assorted over and rejected, for one that is selected ; and that from thousands of miles. In my body there are atoms, probably, that came from Java (in coffee), and from Cuba or Manilla (in sugar), and from the western prairies (in pork), and from the savannahs of Carolina (in rice), and from the green hills of Western Virginia (in beef and butter), and from our own fields (in fruits). Do you say, the selection and aggregation have been accomplished gradually, by sundry natural laws of vege- tation and nutrition ? Yea, but what are natural laws ? Only regular modes of God's working through matter, which He has in His wisdom proposed to Himself? If God actually does this thing now, why may He not do another thing just like it, only more quickly?

But an objection supposed to be still more formidable, is derived from the supposed flux of particles AnswS'^ °^^''"°" in the human body, and the cases in which particles which belonged to one man at his death, become parts of the structure of another man's body, through cannibalism, or the derivation by beasts from the mould enriched with human dust, which beasts are in turn con- sumed by men, &c., &c. Now, since one material atom cannot be in two places at the same time, the resurrection of the same bodies, say they, is a physical impossibility. And if the flux of particles be admitted, which shall the man claim, as com- posing his bodily identity ; those he had first, or those he had

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 835

last : or all he ever had ? To the first of these questions, we reply, that there is no evidence that a particle of matter com- posing a portion of a human corpse, has ever been assimilated by another human body. It is only assumed that it may be so. But now, inasmuch as the truth of Scripture has been demon- strated by an independent course of moral evidences, and it asserts the same body shall be raised, if there is, indeed, any difficulty about this question of the atoms, the burden of proof lies upon the objector; and he must demonstrate that the diffi- culty exists, and is insuperable. It is not sufficient merely to surmise that it may exist. Now, I repeat, a surmise is good enough to meet a surmise. Let me assume this hypothesis, that it may be a physiological law, that a molecule, once assimilated and vitalized by a man (or other animal), undergoes an influ- ence which renders it afterwards incapable of assimilation by another being of the same species. This, indeed, is not without plausible evidence from analogy : witness, for instance, the fer- tility of a soil to another crop, when a proper rotation is pur- sued, which had become barren as to the first crop too long repeated. But, if there is any such law, the case supposed by the objector against the resurrection, never occurs. But, second: in answer to both objections, it can never be shown that the numerical identity of all the constituent atoms is necessary to that bodily sameness, which is asserted by the Bible of our resurrection bodies. We are under no forensic obligation what- ever, to define precisely in what that sameness consists, but take our stand here, that the Bible, being written in popular lan- guage, when it says our resurrection bodies will be the same, it means precisely what popular consciousness and common language apprehend, when it is said my body at forty is the same body grown stronger, which I had at fifteen. Let that meaning be whatever it may be, if this doctrine of the flux of particles, and this possibility of a particle that once belonged to one man becoming a part of another, prove that our resur- rection bodies cannot be the same that died, they equally prove that my body cannot now be the body I had some years ago, for that flux, if there is any truth in it, has already occurred ; and there i; just as much probability that I have been nourished with a few particles from a potatoe, manured with the hair of some man who is still living, as that two men will both claim the same particles at the resurrection. But my consciousness tells me (the most demonstrative of all proof), that I have had the same body all the timfe, so that, if these famous objections disprove a resurrection, they equally contradict consciousness. You will notice that I propound no theory as to what consti- tutes precisely our consciousness of bodily identity, as it is wholly unnecessary to our argument that I should ; and that I do not undertake to define precisely how the resurrection body will be constituted in this particular; and this is most proper

836 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

for me, because the Bible propounds no theory on this point.

But if curiosity leads you to enquire, I answer that it

appears to me our consciousness of bodily

rine*Life What''^ "' identity (as to a limb, or member, or organ

of sense, for instance) does not include an

apprehension of the numerical identy of all the constituent

atoms all the while, but that it consists of an apprehension of

a continued relation of the organism of the limb or organ to

our mental consciousness all the time, implying also that there

is no suden change of a majority, or even any large fraction of

the constituent atoms thereof at any one time.

In presenting the Bible-proof, nothing more will be done, ^ , than to cite the passages, with such word of

4. Proofs That Bod- , ,• u 4. 1

ies Will Rise. explanation as may be necessary to show

their application. If we believe our Saviour, implications of this doctrine appear at a very early stage of the Old Testament Scriptures ; for indeed the sort of immortality implied all along, is the immortality of man, body and soul. (See then Exod. iii : 6, as explained in Matt, xxii : 31, 32; Mark xii : 26, 27). The next passage is Job xix : 26, which I claim qidciinque vtilt, as containing a clear assertion of a resur- rection. In Ps. xxvi : 9, ii, (expounded Acts ii : 29, 32 ; xiii : 36, '},']') David is made by the Holy Ghost to foretell Christ's resurrection. Doubtless, the Psalmist, if he distinctly knew that he was personating Christ m this language, appre- hended his own resurrection as a corollary of Christ's. Ps. xvii : 15 probably alludes also to a resurrection in the phrase : " awake in thy likeness ; " for what awakes, except the body ? Nothing else sleeps. So Is. xxv : 8, may be seen interpreted in I Cor. xv : 54 ; Dan. xii : 2. Both teach the same doctrine.

In the New Testament the proofs of bodily resurrection are still more numerous and explicit. The following are the chief; Matt, xxii : 31, &c. ; Mark xii : 26, 27 ; John v : 21, 29 ; vi : 39, 40 ; xi : 24 ; Acts as above ; i Cor. xv ; i Thess, iv : 13 to end; 2 Tim. ii : 8; Phil, iii : 21 ; Heb. vi : 2 ; xi : 35.

Other strong Scriptural proofs are urged by the Reformed divines, which need little more than a mere statement here. The resurrection of Christ is both the example and proof of ours. I Cor. xv : 20; i Peter i : 3. First, it demonstrates that the work is feasible for God. Second, it demonstrates the suf- ficiency and acceptance of Christ's satisfaction for His peo- ple's guilt : but bodily death is a part of our penalty therefor : and must be repaired when we are fully invested with the avails of that purchase. Third : Scripture shows such a union between Christ, the Head, and His members; that our glorifica- tion must result as His does, i Cor. vi : 15.

The exposition given of the Covenant of Grace, by our Saviour Himself in Matt, xxii : 31, &c., shows that it includes a resurrection for the body. This covenant, Christ there teaches

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 837

US, is first, perpetual : death does not sever it. But second, it was a covenant not between God and angels or ghosts ; but between Him and the incorporate men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then, its consummation must restore them to their incorporate state.

The inhabitation of our bodies by the Holy Ghost implies the redemption of the body also. Although not the primary seat of sanctification, the body, thus closely dedicated to the Spirit's indwelling, will not be left in the dust. Rom. viii : ii.

Last, we have seen Turrettin unfold the reasonableness of men's being judged in the bodies in which they have lived. The rewards and penalties cannot, in any other way, be so appropriate, as when God makes the bodily members which were abused or consecrated, the inlets of the deserved penalties, or the free rewards. See i Cor. v : lo.

Some divines, as e. g. Breckinridge, say that the resur- rection of both saints and sinners is of m'ttrsua^Chfsf Christ's purchase quoting , Cor. xv : 22, makmg the " all mean the whole human race. But we teach, that while Christ, as King in Zion, com- mands the resurrection of both, it is in different relations. The resurrection of His people being a gift of His purchase, is effectu- ated in them by the union to Him, and is one result of the in- dwelling of the Holy Ghost. The resurrection of the evil is an act of pure dominion, effected in them by His avenging sove- reignty. The other idea would represent the wicked also, as vitally connected with Christ, by a mystical union. But if so, why does not that union sanctify and save ? Are we authorized to say that, had Christ not come, there would have been no resurrection unto damnation for Adam's fallen race at all ? Moreover, that opinion puts an unauthorized and dangerous sense upon i Cor. xv : 22, et sini.

The wisdom and modesty of the Westminster Assembly are displayed in the caution with which they Second Adve"ir ^""^ ^P^^^ o" ^^^^e difficult subjects. Their full discussion would lead into a thorough investi- gation of that vast and intricate subject, unfulfilled prophecy. Nothing more can be attempted here, than a brief statement of competing schemes. They each embrace, and attempt to adjust, the following points : The millennium, or thousand years' reign of Christ on earth : Christ's second advent : The destruc- tion of the Kingdom of Satan among men : The resurrection of the righteous and the wicked : and the general judgment and final consummation. That doctrine which we hold, and which we assert to be the Apostolic and Church doctrine, teaches, just as much as the pre-Adventists, the literal and personal second advent of Christ, and we hold, with the Apostolic Christians, that it is, next to heaven, the dearest and most glorious of the believer's hopes : as bringing the epoch of his full

838 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

deliverance from death, and full introduction into the society of his adored Saviour, This hope of a literal second advent we base on such Scriptures as these : Acts i : 11 : iii : 20, 21 ; Heb. ix : 28 ; I Thess. iv : 15, 16 ; Phil, iii : 20 ; Matt, xxvi : 64, &c., &c. Before this second advent, the following events must have occurred. The development and secular overthrow of Anti- christ, (2 Thess. ii : 3 to 9 ; Dan. vii : 24-26 ; Rev. xvii, xviii :) which is the Papacy. The proclamation of the Gospel to all nations, and the general triumph of Christianity over all false religions, in all nations. (Ps. Ixxii : 8-1 1 ; Is. ii : 2-4 ; Dan. ii : 44,45 ; vii: 14 ; Matt, xxviii : 19, 20 ; Rom. xi : 12, 15, 25 ; Mark xiii : 10 ; Matt, xxiv : 14). The general and national return of the Jews to the Christian Church. (Rom. xi : 25, 26). And then a partial relapse from this state of high prosperity, into unbelief and sin. (Rev. xx : 7, 8). During this partial decline, at a time unexpected to formal Christians and the profane, and not to be expressly foreknown by any true saint on earth, the second Advent of Christ will take place, in the manner described in I Thess. It will be immediately followed by the resurrection of all the dead, the redeemed dead taking the precedence. Then the generation of men living at the time will be changed (without dying) into their immortal bodies, the world will undergo its great change by fire, the general judgment will be held ; and last, the saved and the lost will severally depart to their final abodes, the former to be forever with the Lord, the the latter with Satan and his angels.

It is not easy to state the scheme of the pre-Adventists, because they are so inconsistent with each other, that a part of their company will disclaim some points of any statement which is made for them. The following propositions, however, are held by the most of pre-Adventists. The present dispensation of the Gospel is neither sufficient nor designed for the general conversion of the world. Missionary efforts can only prepare the way for Christ's coming, by gathering out of the doomed mass the elect scattered among them. For, Christ's advent may be at any time, before any general evangelization of either Jews or Gentiles ; and when He comes, the wicked will be destroyed by it, and not converted. At this advent, the saints, or the more illustrious of them, at least, will be raised from the dead. The converted Jews will return to Canaan, the temple will be rebuilt and its service restored ; and the incarnate Mes- siah will reign a thousand years, (or a long cycle symbolized by a thousand years,) on earth, with' the risen saints. This will be the millennium of Rev. xxth. At the end of this time, the general resurrection of the wicked will take place, and be fol- lowed by the general judgment and final consummation.

The boast is: that, they are the only faithful party in expounding prophecy according to its literal meaning : and that the daily expectation of this advent is exceedingly promo-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 839

tive of faith and holy Hving. I can attempt no more than to set down for you a few leading remarks.

Of these the first is : that though it is now the fashion for

these pre-Adventists to claim the special Jlt^^TcZlsT:: h-^<^/>^s of orthodoxy their system is dis-

tmctly agamst that of the Westminster Con- fession. Not only does that standard ignore it totally : it expressly asserts the contrary : Ch. viii : § 4. " Christ shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." (Ch. xxxii : § 2). "At the last day ... all the dead shall be raised up." (Chap, xxxiii : § 3). " So will He have that day unknown to men," &c. (Larger Cat. Qu. 56). " Christ shall come again at the last day," &c., Qu. 86, 8y. '■ The members of the invisible Church . . . wait for the full redemption of their bodies . . . till at the last day they be again united to their souls." " We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."

2nd. To me it appears that the temper which secretly prompts

this scheme is one of unbelief Overweening

V^l 1,^'^IV^"]'^ ?"^" and egotistical hopes of the early evansfeli-

gested by Mistrust. . ° -^ , , r 1 1 • 1

zmg 01 the whole world, fostered by partial

considerations, meet with disappointment. Hence results a feeling of skepticism ; and they are heard pronouncing the present agencies committed to the Church, as manifestly inade- quate. But the temper which Christ enjoins on us is one of humble, faithful, believing diligence in the use of those agen- cies, relying on His faithfulness and power to make them do their glorious work. He commands us also to remember how much they have already accomplished, when energized by His grace, and to take courage. The tendencies of the pre-Advent scheme are unwholesome, though it has been held by some spiritually minded men.

Its advocates boast that they alone interpret the symbols of prophecy faithfully. But when we examine, moT-e Faithful''' ""^ ^^^ ^^d that they make no nearer approach to an exact system of exposition ; and that they can take as wild figurative licenses when it suits their pur- poses, as any others. The new interpretations are usually but violations of the familiar and well-established canon, that the prophets represent the evangelical blessings under the tropes of the Jewish usages known to themselves.

3d. The pre-Advent scheme disparages the present, the dis- pensation of the Holy Ghost, and the means committed to the Church for the conversion of sinners. It thus tends to dis- courage faith and missionary effort. Whereas Christ represents the presence of the Holy Ghost, and this His dispensation, as so desirable, that it was expedient for Him to go away that the Paraclete might come. John xvi : 7. Pre-Adventism repre-

840 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

sents it as so undesirable that every saint ought to pray for its immediate abrogation. IncreduHty as to the conversion of the world by the " means of grace," is hotly, and even scornfully, inferred from visible results and experiences, in a temper which we confess appears to us the same with that of unbelievers in 2 Peter iii:4: "Where is the promise of his coming?" &c. They seem to us to "judge the Lord by feeble sense," instead of " trusting Him for His grace." Thus it is unfavorable to a faithful performance of ecclesiastical duties. If no visible Church, however orthodox, is to be Christ's instrument for over- throwing Satan's kingdom here — if Christ is to sweep the best of them away as so much rubbish, along with all " world-pow- ers," at His Advent — if it is our duty to expect and desire this catastrophe daily ; who does not see that we shall feel very slight value for ecclesiastical ties and duties ? And should we differ unpleasantly from our Church courts, we shall be tempted to feel that it is pious to spurn them. Are we not daily pray- ing for an event which will render them useless lumber?

4th. Their scheme is obnoxious to fatal Scriptural objections : That Christ comes but twice, to atone and tura°Facfs.^^' -cup- ^-q jyjjgg • (Hcb. ix : 28). That the heavens must receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things, (Acts iii : 21). That the blessedness of the saints is always placed by Scripture in " those new heavens and new earth," which succeed the judgment. That on this scheme the date of the world's end will be known long before it comes ; whereas the Scripture represents it as wholly unexpected to all when it comes : That only one resurrection is anywhere mentioned in the most exprcbs didactic passages ; so that it behooves us to explain the symbolical passage in Rev. XX : 4 to 6, in consistency with them : That the Scriptures say, (e. g., I Cor. XV : 23 ; 2 Thess. i : lO; i Thess. iii : 13), that the whole Church will be complete at Christ's next coming. And that then the sacraments, and other " means of grace," will cease finally. The opinion is also beset by insuperable difficul- ties, such as these : whether these resurrected martyrs will die again ; whether they will enjoy innocent corporeal pleasures ; whether (if the affirmative be taken) their children will be born with original sin ; if not, whence those apostate men are to come, who make the final brief falling away just before the second resurrection, &c. On all these points the pre-Adventists make the wildest and most contradictory surmises.

5th. Thus, the scheme tends towards the Rabbinical view of the present state of departed saints. All admit, that their condi- tion is not equal in blessedness and glory, to that upon which they will enter after the resurrection of the body. In the view of the pre-Adventist, it must be also lower than the millennial state ; because they hold that Christs advent, and the " first resurrection," is a promotion much to be desired by them.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 84 1

But pre-Adventists confess, with us, that the final state, after ■** the marriage supper of the Lamb," wiU be highest of all. Then the present condition of the sainted dead is, according to this doctrine, lower than another mid-way state, which in turn, is lower than the highest. May not the present state then, be quite low indeed ? May it not be almost as irksome as that of souls in the Rabbinical Hades ? So some pre-Adventists do not stickle to intimate.

6th. Pre-Adventists usually claim that their expectation of the Lord's coming is peculiarly promotive of spiritual-minded- ness, strong faith, and close walking with God. A Christian who had not adopted their scheme, is represented as exclaiming, when it was unfolded : " If I believed so, I must live near my Saviour indeed ! " If he did, he exclaimed foolishly. For first, did not God give one and the same system of sanctifica- tion to us and to primitive Christians ? But these could not have cherished the expectation of seeing the " personal advent " before death ; for stubborn facts have proved that it was not less than 1800 years distant. Second, every Christian, even if he is a pre-Adventist, must know that it is far more probable his body will die before the "advent," than that he will live to see it. All admit that in a few years the body must die. Then the season of repentance will be done, the spiritual state of our souls decided forever, and our spirits reunited to a glorified Redeemer in a better w^orld than this. Now, if there is faith, these certainties contain more wholesome stimulus for it, than can possibly be presented in the surmises of any pre-Adventist theory. The only reason the latter is to any persons more ex- citing, is the romance attaching to it ; the same reason which enabled the false prophet. Miller, to drive multitudes into wild alarm by the dream of approaching judgment, who were un- moved by the sober certainty of approaching death. The hope of us common Christians is to meet our glorified Lord very cer- tainly and very soon (when our bodies die) in the other world. It passes our wits to see how a less certain hope of meeting Him in this world (a worse one) can evince more " love for His appearing."

SYLLABUS

See Conf. of Faith, ch. ^2' Matt. ch. xxv ; Jno. ch. v; 2 Thess. i : 7, 10; Rev. XX : 12 to end.

1. What are God's purposes in holding a final universal Judgment? And what the proofs that it will occur ?

Turrettin, Loc. xx, Qu. 6. Ridgley, Qu. 88. Davies' Sermon on Judgment. Hodge Theol. Vol. iii, p. 844.

2. What will be the time, place, and accessory circumstances ? Dick, Lect. 83. Knapp, § 155, and above authorities.

3 Who will be the Judge ? In what sense will the saints be His assessors ? Ridgley, as above.

4. Who will be judged ? And for what? Ridgley and Turrettin as above.

5. By what rule ? What the respective Sentences ? See same authorities.

6. What will be the nature of the reward of the Righteous ?

Same authorides, especially Dick, Lect. 83. Turrettin, Qu. 8, 10, 11. 12, 13, Knapp, § 159, 160. Young's Last Day. Hill, bk. v, ch. 8. Hodge Theol, Vol. iii. p. 85$.

TT might seem that the purposes of God's righteotisness and government might, at first view, be sufficiently satisfied by

a final distribution of rewards and punish- eraUud'Tra'ent." ^"" ments, to men, as they successively passed

out of this life. But His declarative glory requires not only this, but a more formal, forensic act, by which His righteous, holy, and merciful dealing shall be collectively displayed before the Universe. For His creatures, both angels and men, are finite, and would remain forever in ig'norance of a great part of His righteous dispensation, unless they received this formal publication. By bringing all His subjects (at least of this province of His Universe) together, and displaying to all, the conduct and doom of all, He will silence every cavil, and compel every one to justify Him in all His dealings.

But more than this : man is, during all his probationary

state, a sensuous being. So that he certainly, science.'"^" ^ ^^ '^^' ^^ "°^ angels, is powerfully actuated by many

motives arising out of a judgment, to shun sin, and seek after righteousness. The strict account, the prompt and irrevocable sentence pronounced upon it, the pub- lication of his sins, secret and open, to all the world, the acces- sories of grandeur and awe which will attend the last award, all appeal to his nature, as a social and corporeal creature, arous- ing conscience, fear, hope, shame of exposure, affection for fellow-men, and giving substance and reality to the doctrine of future rewards, in a way which could not be felt, if there were no judgment day. But, as was remarked concerning the death 842

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 843

of the saints ; if any benefit is to be realized from the certain prospect of an event, the event must be certain.

Several arguments have been announced by theologians to Rational Arguments show that reason might anticipate a general Invalid, Though Piob- judgment, (a). From the necessity of some ^^^^- means to readjust the inequalities between

men's fates in this life and their merits, (b). From the terrors of man's own guilty conscience, (c). From the pagan myths con- cerning future Judges, Rliavimisia, Eac7is, Minos, Rhadamanthiis. But these are rather evidences of future rewards and punish- ments, than of their distribution in the particular forensic form of a general judgm'ent. Reason can offer no more than a prob- able evidence of the latter ; and this evidence is best seen from the objects which God secures by a judgment, when considered in the light of these convictions. So far as God Himself is con- cerned in the satisfaction of the attributes of justice in His own breast, it would be enough that He should see for Himself, each man's whole conduct and merits, and assign each one, at such time and place as He please, the adequate rewards. But reason and conscience make a judgment probable, because they obvi- ously indicate the above valuable ends to be subserved by it. For it enables God, not only to right all the inequalities of His temporal providence, and to sanction the verdicts of man's con- science, but to show all this to His kingdom, to the glory of His grace and holiness; to unmask secret sin when He punishes it ; to stop the mouths of the accusers of His people while He reveals and rewards their secret graces and virtues ; and to apply to the soul, while on earth, the most pungent stiinidi to obedience.

But this is more clearly the doctrine of Revelation. It would indeed be inaccurate to apply to a Revelation Teaches it. g^j^g^al judgment every thing which is said in the Bible about God's judgment : as is done to too great an extent by some writers. For this word is sometimes used for God's government in general (John v : 22) for a command or precept, (Ps. xix : 9 ;) sometimes for God's chastisements (i Pet. iv : 17,) sometimes for His vengeance, (Ps. cxlix : 9 ;) some- times for the attribute of righteousness, (Ps. Ixxii : 2, or Ixxxix : 14 ;) sometimes for a special sentence pronounced. But the following passages may be said to have more or less of a proper application to the general judgment, and from them it will be learned that this has been the doctrine of the Church from the earliest ages, viz; Jude 14 ; Eccles. xii : 14 ; Ps. 1 ; 3-6, 21 ; possibly Ps. xcvi : 13 ; Dan. vii : 10 ; Matt, xii : 36 ; xiii : 41 ; xvi : 27 ; and most notably xxv : 31-46 ; Acts xvii : 31 ; 2 Cor. v : 10 ; 2 Thess. i : 7-10 ; 2 Tim. iv : i ; Rev. xx : 12. Other passages which will be quoted to show who are the Judge, and parties judged, and what the subjects of judgment, also apply fairly to this point. They need not be anticpiated here.

844 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

Some laxer theologians, especially of the German school,

have taught that all these passages do not

'^^f //'''sment not ^g^ch a literal, universal, forensic act, but

merely Metaphorical. ' i . i -^ i -n • i

merely a state, to which Cjoq will successively bring all His creatures according to their respective merits ; in short that the whole representation ,is merely figurative of cer- tain principles of retribution. The answer is, to point to the previous arguments, which show that not only equal retributions, but a public formal declaration thereof, are called for by the purposes of God's government, and the system of doctrines ; and to show that the strong terms of the Scriptures cannot be satisfied by such an explanation. There are figures ; but those figures must be literalized according to fair exegetical laws ; and they plainly describe the judgment as something that precedes the execution of the retribution.

The time of this great transaction, absolutely speaking, is, and is intended to be, utterly unknown to the DidAJos°tLl^\ISSe whole human race, in order that its uncertain- ty may cause all to fear ; i Thess. v : 2 ; 2 Pet. iii : 10 ; Matt, xxiv : 36, &c. Hence we may see the unscriptu- ralness of those who endeavor to fix approximately a day, which God intends to conceal, by their interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy. If the beginning of the millennium can be defi- nitely fixed by an event so marked as the personal advent of Christ ; if its continuance can be marked off by one thousand literal, solar years ; and if the short apostasy which is to follow is to last only a few years, then God's people will foreknow pretty accurately when to expect the last day. Again : the Jewish Christians, among many vague expectations concerning Christ's kingdom, evidently expected that the final consum- mation would come at the end of one generation from Christ's ascension. This erroneous idea was a very natural deduction from the Jewish belief, that their temple and ritual were to sub- sist till the final consummation, when coupled with Christ's declaration, in Matt, xxiv : that Jerusalem should be destroyed in the day of some then living. See this misconception be- trayed. Matt, xxiv : 3 ; Acts i : 7. So they doubtless misunder- stood Matt, xvi ; 28. Now, it has ever been a favorite charge against the inspiration of the Apostles, in the mouths of infidels, that they evidently shared in this mistake. E. g. in James v : 8 ; 2 Peter iii : 12 ; Phil, iv : 5, &c. But this charge is founded only in the ignorance of the Apostles' various meanings when they speak of the " coming," or "presence," of Christ. Often- times they mean the believer's death ; for that is practically His coming and the end of the world, to that believer ; and the space between that and the general judgment is to him no space practically ; because nothing can be done in it to redeem the soul. Their misunderstanding is clearly enough evinced by Paul in 2 Thess. ii : 1-3, &c., Avith i Thess. iv : 15, 17. For the

OF LECTURES' IN THEOLOGY. 845

latter place contains language than which none would be more liable to these skeptical perversions. Yet in the former citation we see Paul explicitly correcting the mistake.

But while, absolutely, the time of the judgment is unknown, It Follows Resurrec- relatively it is distinctly fixed. It will be tion. How Long Pro- immediately after the general resurrection, ^'"^'^^^'^- and just coincident with, or just after the

final destruction of the globe by fire. The good and evil men do, live after them. Hence, that measure of merit and demerit, which is taken from consequences, is not completely visible to creatures until time is completed. St. Paul is still doing good : Simon Magus is still doing mischief *' They being dead, yet speak." We thus perceive a reason why God's declarative judgment of men, meant as it is for the instruction of the crea- tures and practical vindication of His justice, should be postponed until men's conduct has borne its full earthly fruits. Hence it is that the great assize is placed immediately after the resur- rection. See Rev. xx : lO to end ; 2 Thess. i : 7 to 10, and similar passages. The duration of the judgment is commonly called a day ; Act xvii : 31. Some, conceiving that the work of the judgment will include the intelligible revealing of the whole secret life of every creature, to every other creature, sup- pose that the period will vastly exceed one solar day in length, stretching possibly to thousands of years. If all this is to be done, they may well suppose the time will be long. But to me, it seems far from certain that this universal revealing of every creature to every other, is either possible or necessary. Can any but an infinite mind comprehend all this immense number of particulars ? Is it necessary, in order that any one creature may have all defective and erroneous ideas about God's govern- ment corrected, which he has contracted in this life, to be intro- duced to the knowledge of parts of His dealings utterly unknown to, and unconnected with him ? Hence I would say, that of the actual duration of the august scene, we know nothing. But we are told that its accessories will be vast and majestic. The terrors of the resurrection will have just occurred, the earth will be just consigned to destruction. Jesus Christ will appear on the scene with ineffable pomp, attended with all the redeemed and the angels ; Acts i : ii. The souls of the blessed will be reunited to their bodies, and then they will be assorted out from the risen crowd of humanity, and their acquittal and glorification declared to the whole assemblage ; while the unbelievers will receive their sentence of eternal condemnation.

The place of this transaction has also been subject of in- quiry. To me it appears indubitable that it will occupy a place in the literal sense of the word. To say nothing of the fact that disembodied souls are not ubiquitous, the actors in this transaction will be, many of them, clothed with literal bodies, which, although glorified or

846 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

damned, will occupy space just as really as here on earth. All that Scripture says about the place is, i Thess. iv : 17, that we " shall be caught up . . . into the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." Some, as Davies, have supposed that the upper regions of our atmosphere will be the place where the vast assembly will be held ; while they will behold the world beneath them, either just before, or during the grand assize, wrapped in the universal fires. But see 2 Peter iii : 10. 'It would seem most obvious from our notions of combustion, as well as from this passage, that however that conflagration may be produced, our atmosphere, the great supporter of combustion, will be in- volved in it. This may serve as a specimen of the ill-success which usually meets us when we attempt to be " wise above that which is written" on these high subjects. The place is not revealed to, and cannot be surmised by us.

The Judge will unquestionably be Jesus Christ, in His

mediatorial person. See Matt, xxv : ^i, ^2; 3. The Judo-e Christ. ••■ .0 t 1 ^- a .. .^ ••

■yy^ 9 ■' ° xxvni : lb ; John v : 27 ; Acts x : 42 : xvu :

3 1 ; Rom. xiv : 10 ; Phil, ii : 10 ; 2 Tim. iv : i . These passages are indisputable. Nor have the Scriptures left us ignorant entirely, of the grounds of this arrangement. The honor and prerogative of judging "the quick and the dead," is plainly declared, in Phil, ii :g, 10, to be a part of Christ's medi- atorial exaltation, and a just consequence of His humiliation. It was right that when the Lord of all condescended, in His unspeakable mercy, to assume the form of a servant, and en- dure the extremest indignities of His enemies, He should enjoy this highest triumph over them, in the very form and nature of His humiliation. Indeed, in this aspect, His judging the world is but the crowning honor of His kingship ; so that whatever views explain His kingly office, explain this function of it. But more than this : His saints have an interest in it. Then only is their redemption completed, justification pronounced finally, and the last consequences of sin obliterated. By the same reason that it was necessary they should have a " merciful and faithful High Priest," in all the previous exigencies of their redemption, it is desirable that they should have their Mediator for their judge in this last crisis. Otherwise they would sink in despair before the terrible bar. They would be unable to an- swer a word to the accuser of the brethren, or to present any excuse for their sins. But when they see their Almighty Friend in the judgment seat, their souls are re-assured. This may be the meaning of the words ''because He is the Son of man." John v : 27.

There seems to be a sense, in which the saints will sit and ^, ,. . . judge with Christ. Ps. cxlix : 6-q;- i Cor.

Ihe saints Assess- • ° r> itt

ors. VI : 2, 3 ; Kev. xx : 4. We suppose no one

will understand from these passages, that

Christians can, or will, exercise those incommunicable functions

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 847

of searching hearts, apportioning infinite penalties to infinite demerits, and executing the sentence with almighty power. There are two lower meanings in which it may be said that saints shall judge sinners. Thus, in Mate, xii : 41, 42, the con- trast of Nineveh's penitence is a sort of practical rebuke and condemnation to those who persist in the opposite conduct. But this does not express the whole truth. The saints are adopted sons of God ; " heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ ; if so be we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." Rom. viii : 17. They also are "kings and priests unto God." In this sense, they share, by a sort of reflected dignity, the ex- altation of their elder brother ; and in this, the culminating point of His mediatorial royalty, they are graciously exalted to share with Him, according to their lower measure. Having had their own acquittal and adoption first declared, they are placed in the post of honour, represented as Christ's right hand, and there concur as assessors with Christ, in the remainder of the transaction.

The persons to be judged will embrace all wicked angels and all the race of man. The evidence of Judged ? ° ^ ^ ^^^^ former part of this proposition is explicit. See Matt, viii : 29; i Cor. vi : 3 ; 2 Pet. ii :4; Jude 6. And that every individual of the human race will be present is evident from Eccles. xii: 14; Ps. 1:4; 2 Cor. v : 10; Rom. xiv:iO; Matt, xii : 36, 37 ; xxv:32; Rev. xx:i2.

Some have endeavored to limit this judgment, (as the Pel- agians), to those men alone who have enjoyed gospel privileges. But if there are any principles in God's government, calling for a general judgment of those subject to it, and if pagans are subject to it, then they also should be judged. And if the pas- sages above cited do not assert an actual universality of the judgment, it is hard to see how any language could. It will be noticed that men will be judged, and doubtless, the wicked angels likewise, for all their thoughts, words and deeds. This is obviously just, and is called for by the purposes of a judgment. For if there was any class of moral acts which had not this prospect of a judgment awaiting them, men would think they could indulge in these with impunity. Upon the question whether the sins of the righteous, already pardoned in Christ, will receive publicity in that day, Dick states the respective argu- ments. To me it appears that we must admit they will be, un- less we can prove that the places where men are warned that they must be judged "for every idle word," for " every secret thing," were not addressed to Christians at all, but only to sin- ners. The disposition to deny that pardoned sins will be pub- lished in the day of judgment, doubtless arises from the feeling that it would produce a shame and compunction incompatible with the blessedness of their state. But will the saints not pub- lish their sins themselves, in their confessions ? And is it not

848 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the sweetest type of spiritual joy, that which proceeds from contrition for sin ?

It may be further noticed, that the Scriptures are utterly silent as to the judging of the holy angels. beTudge^^?''^ "^""^^^ It is therefore our duty to refrain from assert- ing anything about it. Some have surmised that though they are not mentioned, they will be judged, because they have some connection through their ministry of love, with the men who will be judged. But, on the other hand, it maybe remarked, there is significance in the fact, that all the creatures spoken of as standing at Christ's judgment are sin- ful ones. The holy angels never sinne'd ; they have been long ago justified through a method totally inapplicable to fallen beings, the Covenant of Works, and this may constitute a valid reason why they should not bear a share in this judgment of sinning beings, who are either justified by free grace or condemned.

So far as the judgment is a display of God's attributes to the creature, it is doubtless to those creatures e pecta ors. ^^\io are conversant with this scene of earthly

struggle. The holy angels are concerned in it as interested and loving spectators ; the wicked angels as causes and promoters of all the mischief; man, as the victim and agent of earthly sin. If God has other orders of intelligent creatures, connected with the countless worlds of which astronomy professes to in- form us, who are not included in these three classes ; it is not necessary to supppose that they will share in this scene, because we have no evidence that they are cognizant of the sins and grace which lead to it. But here all is only dim surmise.

The rule by which sinners and saints will be judged, will be the will of God made known to them. The 5. The Rule. Gentiles will be judged by that natural law

written on their hearts ; the Jews of the Old Testament by that, and the Old Testament alone ; but those who have enjoyed the Gospel in addition to the others, shall be judged by all three. (See Rom. ii : 12 ; Jno. xii : 48 ; Luke xii : 47 ; Jno. xv : 22). God will judge justly, and render to every man his due. In Dan. vii : 10 ; Rev, xx : 12; the same phrase is employed: "The judgment was set, and the books opened." Perhaps the mode of understanding this, most accordant with the mind of the Spirit, would be to attempt to apply the phrase, book, to noth- ing in particular, in the judgments of man; but to regard it as a mere carrying out of the august figure; a grand judicial trial. But if a more particular explanation must be had, we may per- haps concur in the belief, that one of these books is the Word of God, which is the statute-book, under which the cases must be decided ; another, the book of God's remembrance, from which the evidence of conduct will be read : and still another, the book of God's decrees, where the names of men were re- corded before the foundation of the world.

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 849

In Matt. XXV, the reprobate are condemned because they Relation of Works have not performed to God's suffering chil- of Charity to Judg- dren acts of beneficence and charity, and the ^^'^"'" righteous acquitted because they have. It

may be briefly remarked here, that while sinners will be con- demned strictly on the merit of their own conduct, saints will be acquitted solely on the merit of Christ. They are rewarded according to, not because of the deeds done in the flesh. The evidence of this may be seen, where we refuted the doctrine of justification by works, and these very passsges were brought into review. But the purpose of God m the judgment is to evince the holiness, justice, love, and mercy of His dealings to all His subjects. But as they cannot read the secret faith, love and penitence of the heart, the sentence must be regulated according to some external and visible conduct, which is cogniz- able by creatures, and is a proper test of regenerate character. It is very noticeable that not all righteous conduct, but only one kind, is mentioned as the test ; these works of charity. And this is most appropriate, not only because they are accur- ate tests of true holiness, but because it was most proper that in a judgment where the accquittal can in no case occur, ex- cept through divine grace and pardon, a disposition to mercy should be required of those who hope for acceptance. (See Jas. ii : 13 ; Matt, x : 12, xviii : 28, &c.

The sentence of the righteous is everlasting blessedness ; that of the wicked, everlasting misery. The 6. The Sentences. discussion of the latter must be the subject of another lecture. The nature of eternal life I shall now en- deavor to state. Far be it from us, to presume to be wise above that which is written ; let us modestly collect those traits of the saint's everlasting rest, which the Bible, in its great re -erve on this subject, has seen fit to reveal.

The place of this eternal life is usually called heaven. It

is undoubtedly a place proper, and not The Place of Reward. ^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^ p^^. ^j^^^.^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^

material bodies of Christ, and of Enoch and Elijah, if not of others. There will be a multitude of bodies. The finite glori- fied spirits there also have a ndz. It is vain for us to surmise, in what part of the Universe Christ's glorified humanity now holds its court. The phrases "up," "above," "ascend," &c., teach nothing ; for what is above to us, is beneath to our antipodes, in whose places we shall be in twelve hours.

But it is not place, but character, which confers essential The Saints' Blessed- happiness. We are taught indeed that occa- ness. (a) In Exemp- sion for this spiritual blessedness will be tion. (b) In Holiness, gecured to the saints by their perfect exemp- tion from all natural evils, such as unsatisfied wants, pain, grief, sickness, violence, and death. (See Job iii : 17 ; Is. xxv : 8 ; Rev. vii : 16, 17 ; xxi : 4.) But the most important fact is, that

54*

850 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the blessedness of the Hfe everlasting is simply the perfection of that state which is begun here by the new birth and sanctifi- cation. As saith M. Henry, " Grace is glory begun, and glory is but grace consummated." (See Jno. v : 24 ; vi : 47 ; Gal. vi : 7). On entering heaven, the soul is made perfectly holy ; and thus every root of misery is removed. When we inquire for the objective sources of the saints' bliss, we find them subordi- nately in the society of fellow-saints, but chiefly in God Him- self, and especially in the Redeemer. (Ps. Ixxiii : 25 ; Rev. xxi : 23). That the saints' happiness will be social, is plain from the Bible representations ; and I believe that those who have known and loved each other here, will recognize each other there. (See i Thess. ii : 19 ; 2 Sam. xii : 23). And it appears very unreasonable that the love, and other social graces which are there perfected in their glorified humanity, should then have no 'objects. But the Holy Trinity will ever be the central and chief object, from which the believer's bliss will be derived.

This happiness will consist in the satisfaction of both mind and heart. Curiosity is one of the keenest Elements of this Hap- ^^^ ^^^^^ uncloying sources of interest and piness Intellective. 1111 • 1 -t-i

pleasure to the healthy mind. Then "we

shall know even as we are known ;" and our minds will find perpetual delight in learning the things of God and His provi- dence. Here will be matter of study ample enough to fill eternity.

Again : To love is to be happy : saith the Apostle John,

" He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God,

and God in him." Our terrestrial objects of affection have taught us, that if the heart could always be exer- cising its affection towards some worthy object, this would con- stitute happiness. But the object being earthly, we are con- stantly liable to be separated from it by distance, or to have it torn from us by death, when our affection becomes our torment. Or, being imperfect, it may wound us by infidelity or injustice. Or else, corporeal wants drive us from it to labour. But now let us suppose the soul, endowed with an object of love wholly worthy and suitable, never separated by distance, nor torn away by death, incapable of infidelity, or unkindness ; is it not plain that in the possession and love of this object, there would be perpetual blessedness ; external evils being fenced off? Such an object is God, and such is the blessedness of heaven, springing from the perpetual indulgence of a love that never cloys, that is never interrupted, and never wounded, and that expresses its happiness in untiring praises.

The answer to the question, where shall be the place of

the saints' final abode, is not vital. Where theVfnaSry^^^'^ °^ holiness, rest and Christ are, is heaven. But

the doctrine that this earth is to be recon-

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Ps. 1:4

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 85 I

structed after its purgation by fire, and is to become the dwell- ing place of redeemed men and the God-Man, in their resur- rection bodies, is beautifully illustrative of some other truths ; and it seems strongly supported by the Scriptures. First, that destruction which awaits the world by fire (2 Peter iii : 7 ; 2 Thess. i : 8,) is not to be an annihilation. There is no evidence that any atom of substance is annihilated ; and we know that combustion annihilates no part of the fuel we burn. Words equally as strong (Gen. vi- : 13 ; Heb. ii : 14 ; 2 Peter iii : 6), are used concerning the flood, and the judgment of Satan and the wicked, where there was no annihilation. But if the earth is to exist after the final consummation, for what end will God use it ? Second : many Scriptures speak of this earth as a permanent structure, and as given to man for his home. See Ps. Ixxviii : 69 ; xc : 2 ; cxv : 16 ; xxxvii : 29 ; viii : 5,6; Matt. V : 5. The promise of the last three can scarcely be understood of any other than the renovated earth, because, as long as the Church is in its militant state, the righteous and the meek are forewarned that " in this world they shall have tribulation." Third ; the striking analogy between our bodies' resurrection, and this Tiolq-fe'uta'.a of our earth, gives probability to the doc- trine. Man was created an incorporate, but holy and immortal creature. By his sin he corrupted his body with death. Re- demption does not propose to cast off this polluted body and save him as a new species of disembodied spirit: No, redemp- tion proposes to restore both parts of man's nature, spirit and body, and in spite of sin and Satan, to realize in eternal perfec- tion God's original conception of a holy, glorious and immortal, incorporate creature. So, by analogy, we naturally expect that when the earth, man's heritage and home, is cursed for his sin and usurped by Satan, it is not to be surrendered to the usurpation, but to be redeemed and purged for its original destination, the eternal home of a glorified human race. This, fourth: agrees exactly with Rom. viii : 19 to 23 ; and with Eph. i : 14. The material creation is here represented, by a vivid impersonation, as interested in our redemption, and des- tined to share it : and there is no other idea which answers so well to that of a purchased possession to be redeemed for us hereafter, as this.

Fifth : when we pass to the New Testament prophecies, the evidence is clearer. Rev. v : 10, the representatives of the ran- somed Church sing to the Lamb : " Thou hast made us to our God kings and priests : and we shall reign on the earth !" This is a privilege which is to follow their present state of expectant glory. So 2 Peter iii : 13, tells us that believers are entitled to " look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." This promise is given in connection with the previous renovation of the earth by fire. In Rev. xxi : i, 2, the apostle sees " a new heaven and a new earth " . . . " and

852 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven." In verse 3d he hears a great voice out of heaven, saying: "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them." The crowning formula of the Covenant of Grace then follows, showing that this descent of God's taber- nacle to earth is the final consummation of the redemption of men.

This conclusion gives us a noble view of the immutability of God's purpose of grace, and the glory of His victory over sin and Satan. This planet was fashioned to be man's heritage; and a part of it, at least, adorned with the beauties of a para- dise, for his home. Satan sought to mar the divine plan, by the seduction of our first parents. For long ages he has seemed to triumph, and has filled His usurped dominion with crime and misery. But his insolent invasion is not to be des- tined to obstruct the Almighty's beneficent design. The intru- sion will be in vain. God's purpose shall be executed. Mes- siah will come and re-establish His throne in the midst of His scarred and ravaged realm ; He will cleanse away every stain of sin and death, and make this earth bloom forever with more than its pristine splendour ; so that the very plan which was initiated when " the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy," will stand to everlasting ages.

SYLLABUS

1. In what will the torments of the wicked consist? Turrettin, Loc. xx, Qii. 7. Ridgley, Qu. 89. Knapp, § 156.

2. State the various opinions which have prevailed as to the duration of these pains. Which now most prevalent among Universalists ?

Turrettin as above. Knapp, § 156-158. Debate between Rice and Pingree.

3. State and refute the usual objections against everlasting punishments, from , God's wisdom, mercy, benevolence, &c.

Knapp as above. Rice and Pingree.

4. What is the proper force in the Scriptures of the original words which state the duration of these torments?

Knapp, § 157. De Quincey's Essays.

5. Prove the everlasUng duration of these torments from the sinner's perpetual sinfulness ; from the Scriptural terms, redemption, pardon, salvation, &c. ; from Uni- versal relation in Providence between conduct and destiny ; from the existence of condemned angels; from the Resurrection; from temporal judgments of God on the wicked, as Sodom, &c. ; from the justice of God and the unequal distribution of rewards here.

Same authorities.

npHE just reward of ill-desert is suffering. The Judgment

results in a curse upon the impenitent, which dooms them,

as none doubt, to some form of suffering.

I. Natural Penalues. Theologians divide the pains which are thus

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY, 853

adjudged to the condemned, into natural, and positive. The former are those which proceed from the natural working of their own evil principles, of themselves, and according to nat- ural law ; such pains as are foreshadowed in Is. iii : 1 1 ; Gal. vi : 8 ; Jas. i : I5' These natural penalties consist of the loss or privation of eternal happiness, which only faith, repentance, and holiness can procure ; of the remorse, self-accusation, and despair, which the soul will inflict on itself for its own folly and sin ; of all the disorders, inward and social, of inordinate and malignant emotions ; and as is most probable, at least, of the stings of carnal, sensual, and sinful desires deprived of all their earthly pabulum. As to this last, it appears most consistent to limit what is said, (i Cor. xv : 45 — end) of the spirituality and blessedness of the resurrection body, to the saints. The rep- robate will rise again; but as they never were savingly united to Christ, they will never " bear the image of the heavenly "Adam. Hence, we naturally and reasonably anticipate, that their bod- ies, while immortal, will not share the glory and purification of the bodies of the Redeemed, but will still be animal bodies, having the appetites and wants of such. But earthly supplies therefor will be forever lacking. Hence, they will be a prey to perpetual cravings unsatisfied.

The positive penalties of sin will be such as God will Him- self add, by new dispensations of His power, Positive Penalties. t.^ • a- i. ~ • i tjt- • --pi-

to mHict anguish on His enemies. ihe

Scriptures always represent Him as arising to avenge Himself, as "pouring out His wrath" upon His enemies; and in such like, and a multitude of other expressions, whatever may be their figurative character, we cannot fail to see this truth, that God puts forth new and direct power, to inflict pain. The stu- pidity and obstinacy of many sinners, obviously, would be restrained by nothing less than the fear of these positive penal- ties. The mere natural penalties would appear to them wholly illusory, or trivial. Indeed, most sinners are so well pleased with their carnal affections, that they would rather declare themselves glad to accept, and even cherish, their merely nat- ural fruits.

These positive penalties undoubtedly will include, when

-TT-,, rr., » rr,. ^hc body is raised, some corporeal pains, and Will They Afflict 1 ^ ■ ^ \ ■ a • K^ ^ u

theBodv! perhaps, consist chiefly in them; else, why

need the body be raised? And there is too obvious a propriety in God's punishing sinners through those members which they have perverted into " members of unright- eousness," for us to imagine for a moment, that He will omit it. Once more ; the imagery by which the punishments of the wicked are represented, however interpreted, is so uniform, as to make it impossible to suppose the bodies of the wicked are exempted. But whether their bodies will be burned with lit- ■eral fire and sulphur, does not appear so certain. In Matt, xxv,

854 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

the fire into which they depart is said to have been pre- pared from the foundation of the world, for the Devil and his angels. They are, and will always remain, incorporeal beings ; and it does not seem probable that literal fire is the instrument which God has devised expressly for their torment. Some weight may also be given to this thought ; that other ad- juncts, as the darkness, the gnawing worm, the brimstone, the smoke, &c., seem to be images adopted from human tortures and earthly scenes of anguish. Hence the conclusion to which Turrettin comes ; that this is all imagery. But, however that may be, the images must be interpreted according to plain rules of right rhetoric. Interpret it as we may, we cannot get anything less from it than this : that sin will be punished with extreme and terrible bodily torments, as well as with natural pains.

Those who deny the eternity of future punishments may ^, 1 r> ■ , be divided into three classes. First are

2. Eternal Punish- , ,

ments denied, i. By those who resolve the punishment oi the Annihilationists. 2. wicked into annihilation. They believe accord- ?e?sSSs.°"''''' ^'^"^ ingly- that only the redeemed enjoy a resur- rection. Second are the ancient and modern Restorationists, who hold to future punishments, longer or shorter, according to men's guilt ; but who suppose that each man's repentance will be accepted after his penal debt is paid ; so that at length, perhaps after a long interval, all will be saved. It is said that the Originists believed that Satan and his angels would also be at last saved. The third opinion is that which is now widely prevalent among modern Universalists. This sup- poses, that the external and internal sufferings which each soul experiences during this life, and in avticido mortis, will satisfy all the essential demands of the divine justice against its sins : and that there will, accordingly, be no future punishments. At death, they suppose, those not already penitent and holy, will be summarily sanctified by God, in His universal mercy through Christ, and at once received into heaven forever. This scheme is the baldest and most extreme of all the forms of Universalism, and stands in most complete opposition to Scrip- ture. My arguments will therefore have a special reference to it.

To clear the way, the Annihilationist may be easily refuted, by all those passages which speak of future First Class Refuted, punishment, even though we grant it not eter- nal. Such are Mark ix : 44, 46 ; Matt, xxv, &c. The resur- rection extends to the wicked, as well as the righteous (Dan. xii : 2; John v : 28, 29). Nor does the quibble avail, that the phrase, " everlasting destruction," or such-like, implies annihila- tion. If this consisted in reducing the sinner forever to noth- ing, it would be instant destruction, not everlasting. How can punishment continue, when the subject of it has ceased to exist?

But it may be well to clear away obstructions, by refuting

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 855

3. God's Love Con- the general grounds on which the eternity of sists With Eternal future punishments is denied. The most Punishments. common of these is that construction of the

text, " God is Love," which makes Him pure benevolence, denying to Him all other moral attributes, and resolving them into phases of benevolence. But we reply ; other texts say, " God is Light ; " " Our God is a consuming Fire." Is He noth- ing but pure intelligence ? Is He nothing but punitive justice? We see the absurd contradictions into which such a mode of interpretation would lead us. Infinite benevolence, intelligence, justice, and truth are co-ordinate and consistent attributes, act- ing harmoniously. That God is not benevolent in such a sense as to exclude punitive justice, is proved thus : "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God " (Heb. x : 31. See also, 2 Cor. v : ii ; Ps. Ixvi : 5. Again; God is not too benev- olent to punish devils, once His holy children, eternally (See Rev. XX : 10). Nor can this ruinous fact be evaded by denying the personality of the devils ; the usual resort of the Univer- salists. The marks of the real personality of devils are as clear as for Judas Iscariot's.

It is equally vain to appeal to the paternal benevolence of

a father, claiming that God is more tender, ure^d°by"SIn.^' ^'''" ^^^ ^^ ^^k whether any earthly parent is

capable of tormenting his own child, however erring, with endless fire. The answer is in such passages as Ps. 1:21. " Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself, but I will rebuke thee," (Is. Iv : 8,) and by the stubborn fact, that this " God of Love " does punish a sinful world, under our eyes, with continual woes, many of them gigantic. How are these dealings to be reconciled with God's benevolence ? By the sufferer's guilt. Then, if the guilt of any is endless, the benevolence of God may permit them to suffer endlessly. Even if we accept the erroneous parallel to a human parent as exact, we may ask : Would a benevolent, wise, and just parent so spare an incorrigibly wicked son, as to sacrifice the order of his house, and the rights of the good children to his impunity ? This argument is sometimes put in this form : " We are com- manded to be like God. We are also commanded to forgive and love our enemies. But if we were like the Calvinists' God, we must hate and damn our enemies." The replies are, that God is also a magistrate ; and that human magistrates are strictly required to condemn the wicked ; that we are under no circumstances required to pardon and love enemies, at the expense of justice and truth; that we are only required to restore the injurious enemy to our confidence and esteem, when he repents ; the one great reason why we are enjoined not to revenge ourselves, is that " vengeance is God's ; He will repay ;" and that God does exhibit an infinite forbearance towards His enemies, by giving His own Son to die for their reconciliation

856 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

on the terms of faith and repentance ; the only terms consistent with His perfections.

The attempt to argue, that God's wisdom would forbid God's Wisdom Con- Him to create immortal beings, and then sists with Eternal Pun- permit them to forfeit the ends of their exist- ishments. ence, is exceedingly weak and presumptuous.

Before the argument can apply, it must be determined what is God's secret purpose as to the ultimate end of their existence. He must suppose himself omniscient, who imagines himself competent to decide.

One would think that the declarations of the Scriptures about eternal punishments were clear enough Cotsiderld."'"^ '^'™'' to decide the debate. But you are aware that the words used in the Scriptures for everlasting, eternal, &c., are said to mean also an " age," a " dispensation," a finite duration ; and that we hear of the ever- lasting hills, and the covenant with David's house as eternal as the sun ; whereas we are told elsewhere, that the hills shall melt, and the sun be darkened, as David's dynasty has perished.

But these words are as strong as any the Greek language affords. (Aristotle, o.uo\^co:: from dzi a»v). They are the same words which are used to express the eternity of God. If they have a secondary and limited meaning in some applications, the subject and context should be appealed to, in order to settle the sense, Now, when these words are used to describe a state, they always express one as long as the nature of the subject to which they are applied can permit. When, e. g., the hills are called everlasting, it is evidently meant, that they will endure as long as the earth on which they rest. Now if " everlasting tor- ment" is said to be the state of a sinful soul, those who believe the soul immortal are bound to understand by it a duration of the punishment coeval with that of the sufferer's being. See thus Rev. xiv : ii ; xx : 10 ; withxxii : 5 ; 2Thess. i : 9 ; Mark iii : 29 ; Matt, xviii : 8. The conclusive fact is, that in Matt. XXV : 46, the same word describes the duration of the saint's bliss and the sinner's penalty. If the latter is not properly un- ending, the former is not.

But more than this : Many texts convey the idea that the

torments of sinners will never end, in terms

Eternal Torments ^^ modes to which this quibble cannot

taught m otlier 1 erms. , _, , r r ^ i

attach, ihus, the state oi men alter death

is changeless ; and when the state of it is fixed at death, nothing

more can be done to modify it: Eccles. ix : lo ; John ix : 4 ;

Eccles. xi : 3. Then it is asserted that " their worm dicth

not." " The fire is not quenched." Mark ix : 43-47 ; John iii :

3 and 36 ; Luke xvi : 26 ; Rev. xxi : 8. Compared with verses

I and 4, Rev. xxii : 1 1, 12.

But the strength of our argument is, that to teach the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 857

5. Universalists Conti-a- Hmited duration of the punishment of sin, diet whole Scripture; as Universalists and Restorationists have to Satan's Personaht}'.— contradict nearly every fact and doctrine of of the Bible. We have seen how they are compelled by their dogma to deny the personality of Satan. The Scriptures bear upon their very face this truth, that man must fulfill some condition in order to secure his destiny. Let that faith on which salvation turns be what it may, it is a some- thing the doing or not doing of which decides the soul's state in different ways. See e. g., Mark xvi : 16, as one of a thousand places. But if the Universalist is true, he who believes and he who believes not, will fare precisely alike. And here I may add that powerful analogical argument ; that under the observed course of God's providence, men are never treated alike irre- spective of their doings and exertions ; conduct always influ- ences destiny. But if the Universalist is true, the other world will be in contradiction to this.

Again : if either the Universalist or Restorationist is true, There is no Pardon, there is no grace, no pardon, no redemption, &c., nor Satisfaction and no salvation. For according to both, all by Christ. ^I^g guilt men contract is paid for ; according

to the one party, in temporal sufferings on earth ; according to the other, in temporary sufferings beyond the grave. Now that which is paid for by the sinner himself is not remitted to him. There is no pardon or mercy. Nor can it be said that there is any salvation. For the only evils to which the sinner is at any time liable, he meets and endures to the full. None are escaped ; there is no deliverance ; no salvation. So we may charge, that their doctrines are inconsistent with that of Christ's satisfaction or atonement. For of course, if each sinner bears his own guilt, there is no need of a substitute to bear it. Hence we find the advocates of these schemes explaining away the vicari- ous satisfaction of Christ.

Indeed, it may justly be added, that the tendency of their

, . , system is to depreciate the authority of the Universahsts Skeptical, ttt 1 - j •. 1 • • /• .

^ Word, to deny its plenary inspiration, to

question its teachings with irreverent license, and to disclose much closer affinities with infidelity than with humble faith. This charge is fully sustained by the history of Universalist churches (so called) and of their teachers and councils. Finally, passing over for the time, the unanswerable argument, that sin has infinite ill desert, as committed against an excellent, perfect and universal law, and an infinite lawgiver, I may argue that even though the desert of a temporary season of sinning were only temporary penalties, yet if man continues in hell to sin for- ever, he will continue to suffer forever. While he was paying off a previous debt of guilt he would contract an additional one, and so be forever subject to penalty.

An attempt is made to argue universal salvation from a

858 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

' . ^ ^ ^ few passages represented by Rom. v : 18, Their Proof-texts Con- j ^ /^ ^^ • 1 • 1 i.i j << 11 >'

g;^g,.g(j_ and I Lor. xv : 22, in which the word all,

is used. I reply, ist, that those who use this argument do not believe that " all," or any " come into con- demnation" by Adam's sin, or " die in Adam ;" and they have no right to argue thence that they will be saved in Christ. They cannot contradict me when I charge them with flatly denying the imputation of Adam's guilt to any of his posterity. I reply, 2d, that the word " all " is, notoriously, used in the Scripture when it often does not mean actual universality ; but only all of a certain class ; Matt, iii : 5 ; Mark i : 37. So, in these texts, the meaning obviously is, that as in Adam all are condemned, ail die, who are federally connected with him, so, in Christ, all savingly connected with Him are made alive. See the context. The very chapter which says, " The free gift came upon all," &c., begins by saying that being "justified by faith," we have peace v/ith God. It must be then that the free gift comes upon " all " that believe. So i Cor. xv : 22, is immediately followed by these words : " But every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming." Obviously, it is " all " who are Christ's, who are made alive in Him. But let the Scripture tell us who are Christ's. " If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His." There is this answer also, to the Universalist, quoting i Cor. xv : 22, that, apply it to whom we will, it teaches after all, not future blessed- ness, but the resurrection of the body.

This doctrine of the Resurrection also suggests an argu-

^ . ^ ment against Universalism, because it is most The Doctrine of 1 1 , 1.-1.-1 .

Two Resurrections. Clearly taught that there are two resurrec- tions ; one for the just and one for the unjust; one desirable, and one dreadful ; one for which holy men of old strove, and one which they shunned. But if all at the res- urrection were renewed and saved, there would be but one res- urrection. The passage quoted from Jno. v:29, settles that point. For it cannot be evaded by the figment of a metaphori- cal resurrection, i. e., a conversion in this life, because of this Christ had thus been speaking in verses 25 to 27. It is in contrast with this, that He then sets the real, material resurrection before us, in verses 28, &c. Moreover, if the resurrection be made a metaphorical one, then in verse 29, we should have the good, in common with the wicked, coming out of that state of depravity and ruin, represented by the "graves " of verses 25, 26. (See also, Phil, iii : 1 1 ; Heb. xi : 35).

If the modern Universalist scheme is true, then the only Death Would Not thing which prevents this life from being an be a Judgment to Sin- unmingled curse, and death a natural good, is "^^^" the pain of parting and dissolution. If these

were evaded by a quick and easy death, it would be an immeas- urable benefit ; a step to an assured blissful state, from one both

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY

859

sinful and unhappy. The most fortunate hfe here is almost worthless, compared with heaven. Hence, when one is sud- denly taken from this life, it is not a penalty, but a favour. We must contradict all that the Scriptures teach, of sudden deaths being a judgment of God against sinners. The antediluvians were gloriously distinguished from Noah, by being illustriously rewarded for their sins by a sudden and summary introduction to holiness and happiness ; while he was punished for his piety, by being condemned to many hundreds of years of suffering, including all the horrors of his watery imprisonment. So, the Sodomites were rewarded for their sins, while Lot was punished by his piety. The cruel Egyptians were swept into glory on the waters of the Red Sea, while Moses was punished for his obedience by a tiresome pilgrimage of forty years.

Again : the assertion that each man's temporal sufferings in Sins Are Not Ade- ^^^^^ life, and in avticulo mortis, are a just quately Requited, recompense for his sins, is false. Scripture ^'^^^^- and observation deny it ; the former in Ps.

Ixxii : 2, 14; Luke xvi : 25, and similiar passages; the latter in the numerous instances . seen by every experienced person, where the humble, pure, retired, prayerful Christian spends years in pain, sickness, and poverty ; while the sturdy rake or covetous man revels in the sensual joys or gains which he pre- fers, and then dies a painless and sudden death. In short, the facts are so plainly against this theory, that the notorious inequality of deserts and rewards in this life has furnished to every reflecting mind, both pagan and Christian, one of the strongest evidences in favour of future rewards and punishments.

In this connection I would argue also, that on the modern ^ , „, , , ^, Universal scheme, God would often be odi-

God Would lliere- 1 • 4. td i. -n 1 • r^

fore be Partial. ously unjust. But See Ps. Ixxxix : 14; Gen.

xviii : 25 ; Rom. ii : 6, &c. Now our adver- saries stoutly deny that any guilt is imputed to Christ and pun- ished in Him. Hence, the flagrant inequality remains, accord- ing to them, forever uncompensated. The vilest and the purest would receive the same rewards, nay, in many cases, the advantage would be against the good ; Providence would often reward vice and punish virtue. For, if the monster of sin is at death renewed and carried immediately to heaven, just as is the saint, thenceforward they are equal ; but before the sinner had the advantage. While holy Paul was wearing out a painful life in efforts to do good, many a sensualist, like his persecutor Nero, was floating in his preferred enjoyments. Both died vio- lent and sudden deaths ; and then, as they met in the world of spirits, the monster receives the same destiny with the saint. So every one of even a short experience, can recall instances somewhat similar, which have fallen under his own observation. I can recall a pair of such persons, whose history may

86o

SYLLABUS AND NOTES

illustrate both my last arguments. Their lives and deaths were nearly cotemporar^', and I was acquainted with the history of both. The one was a Christian female, in whom a refined and noble disposition, sanc- tified by grace, presented one of the most beautiful examp'es of virtue which this world can often see. She united early and long-tried piety, moral courage, generosity, self-devotion, with the most feminine refinement of tastes, charity and tender- ness. There was a high frame of devotion without a shade of austerity ; there was the courage of a martyr, without a tinge of harshness. She combined the most rigid economy towards herself with the most liberal benefactions. For many years, she denied herself the indulgence of her elegant tastes, except such as nature offered without expense in the beauties of flower, and forest, and landscape, in order that she might husband the proceeds of a moderate competency for the needy, for the suf- fering, and for God. Her days were passed in a pure retire- ment, far from the strifes and corruptions of the world. Her house was the unfailing refuge of the sick and the unfortunate among her kindred and the poor ; her life was little else than a long and painful ministration to their calamities ; and more than once she had flown, with a moral heroism which astonished her friends, into the midst of pestilence, to be the ministering angel at the solitary couch of her suffering relatives. Never did neg- lect cause her devotion to flag, and never did reproach or injury wring from her a word or deed of retaliation, although she received not a little of both, even from those whom she strove to bless. Such was her life to the last.

And now let us look at her earthly reward. Her whole life was spent in uncertain, or in feeble health. It was often her lot to have her kindness misunderstood, and her sensitive afiections lacerated. She scarcely tasted earthly luxuries or ease ; for she lived for others. At length, three years before her death, she was overtaken by that most agonizing and incurable of all the scourges which afflict humanity, cancer. For three long years her sufferings grew, and with them her patience. The most painful remedies were endured in vain. ^ The last weeks of her life were spent in utter prostration, and unceasing agony, so strong that her nurses declared themselves amazed and affrighted to see a nature so frail as man's bearing such a load of anguish. A peculiarity of constitution deprived her even of that poor resource of suffering, the insensibility of opiates. Up to the very last hour of death, there was no respite ; with- out one moment of relaxation in the agony, to commend her soul to her Saviour; maddened by unbearable pangs; crying like her dying Redeemer, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," she approached the river of death, and its waters were not assuaged to ease her passage.

Now for the contrast. During nearly the same period, and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 86 1

in an adjoining county, there lived a man, who embodied as many repulsive qualities as it has ever been my lot to see in one human breast. His dark, suspicious eye, and malignant coun- tenance gave fit expression to the soul within. Licentious, a drunkard, devoid of natural affection, dishonest, quarrelsome, litigious, a terror to his neighbors, he was soiled with dark sus- picion of murder. He revelled in robust health ; and as far as human eye could see, his soul was steeped in ignorance and sensuality, and his conscience seared as with heated iron. He was successful in escaping the clutches of the law, and seemed to live in the enjoyment of his preferred indulgences. At length this man, at the monthly court of his county, retired to a chamber in the second story of the tavern, drunk, as was his what, and lay down to sleep. The next morning, he was found under the window, stone dead, and with a broken neck. Whether he had walked in his sleep, or the hand of revenge had thrust him out, was never known. In all probability he never knew what killed him, and went into the other world without tasting a single pang, either in body or soul, of the sor- rows of dissolution.

Now let us suppose that these two persons, appearing so nearly at the same time in the presence of ThesTEquajT ^ ^ ^od, were together introduced into the same heaven. Where is the equality between their deserts and their rewards? On the whole, the providential dif- ference was in favour of the most guilty. If this is God's jus- tice, then is He more fearful than blind chance, than the Prince of Darkness himself. To believe our everlasting destiny is in the hand of such unprincipled omnipotence, is more horrible than to dwell on the deceitful crust of a volcano. i\nd if heaven consists in dwelling in His presence, it can have no attractions for the righteous soul.

In conclusion ; whether UniversaHsm be true or false, it is Universalism has no absurdity to teach it. If it turns out true, Motive for Propa- no one will have lost his soul for not learning ^^'^"S ^^" it. If it turns out false, every one who has

embraced it thereby will incur an immense and irreparable evil. Hence, though the probabilities of its truth were as a million to one, it would be madness and cruelty to teach it.

But, apart from all argument, what should a right-minded man infer from the fact, that of all intelligent and honest stu- dents of the Scriptures, scarcely one in a milHon has found the doctrine of universal salvation in them.

The chief practical argument in favor of Universalism is,

doubtless, the sinful callousness of Christians

sensibSly oFEeSvers."" towards this tremendous destiny of their

sinful fellow-creatures. Can we contemplate

the exposure of our friends, neighbours, and children to a fate

so terrible, and feel so little sensibility, and make efforts so few

862 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

and weak for their deliverance ! And yet, we profess to have faith ! How can our unbelieving friends be made to credit the sincerity of our convictions ? Here, doubtless, is the best argument of Satan, for their skepticism. And the best refu- tation of this heresy is the exhibition by God's people of a holy, tender, humble, yet burning zeal to pluck men as brands from the burning.

SYLLABUS

1. State the two theories of the origin of civil government out of a " social con- tract," and out of the ordinance of God. Establish the true one.

2. What is civil liberty? What its limits ?

3. What are the proper objects of the powers of the Civil Magistrate? What their limits ? What the limits to the obedience of a Christian man to the Civil Mag- istrate ? When and how far is the Christian entitled to plead a ' higher law ? '

4. Is the citizen bound always to passive obedience ? If not, when does the right of forcible resistance to an unjust government begin ?

See Confession of Faith, ch. 23. Blackstone's Com. bk. i. Introduc. ^ 2. Paley's Moral Phil. bk. vi, ch. 1-5, Alontesqttieii Esprit des Loix, bk. i. ch. 11. Burlemaqjii, Vol. iv, pt. i. Loclie's Treatise of Civil Gov., bk. ii. Princeton Review, Jan., 1851. IBledsoe on Liberty and Slavery, ch. I, So. Rev. Art. ' Civil Liberty.' Defence of Virginia and the South, ch. 7, § 3.

' I ^HE duty of the Christian citizen to civil society is so exten-

sive and important, and so many questions arise as to its

limits and nature, the propriety of holding

Examined in its Chris- office, the powers exercised by the magis-

tian Aspects Only. 011 1 r ^ r^-, ^

trate, &c., that the teacher of the Church should be well grounded in the true doctrine of the nature of the commonwealth. Hence, our Confession has very properly placed this doctrine in its 23d chapter. It is emphatically a doctrine of Scripture.

Three opposing theories have prevailed, among nominally

Christian philosophers, as to the origin and

I. Theories of Gov- extent of the Civil Magistrate's powers. The

ernment Ungm. •=> 1 • 1

one traces them to a supposed social con- tract. Men are to be at first apprehended, they say, as insu- lated individuals, separate human integers, all naturally equal, and each by nature absolutely free, having a natural liberty to exercise his whole will, as a " Lord of Creation." But the experience of the exposure, inconveniences, and mutual vio- lences of so many independent wills, led them, in time, to be willing to surrender a part of their independence, in order to secure the enjoyment of the rest of their rights. To do this, they are supposed to have conferred, and to have entered

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 863

into a compact with each other, binding themselves to each other to submit to certain rules and restraints upon their natu- ral rights, and to obey certain ones selected to rule, in order that the power thus delegated to their hands might be used for the protection of the remaining rights of all. Subsequent citizens entering the society, by birth or immigration, are supposed to have given an assent, express or implied, to this compact. The terms of it form the organic law, or constitution of the com- monwealth. And the reason why men are bound to obey the legitimate commands of the magistrate is, that they have thus bargained with their fellow-citizens to obey, for the sake of mutual benefits.

Many writers, as Blackstone and Burlemaqui, are too sen- sible not to see that this theory is false to

Modified^°"'''^''''^^'^°'^ ^1^^ f^cts of the case ; but they still urge, that although individual men never existed, in fact, in the insulated state supposed, and did not actually pass out of that state into a commonwealth state, by a formal social contract ; yet such a contract must be assumed as implied, and as offering the virtual source of political power and obli- gation. Thus Blackstone, iibi supra, p. 47 : " But though society had not its formal beginning from any convention of individuals, actuated by their wants and their fears ; yet it is the sense of their weakness and imperfection which keeps mankind together ; that demonstrates the necessity of this union ; and that there- fore is the solid and natural foundation, as well as the cement of civil society." To us it appears, that if the compact never occurred in fact, but is only a supposititious one, a legal fiction it is no basis for any theory, and no source for practical rights and duties.

The other theory may be called the Christian. It traces civil government to the will and providence eory. ^^ God, wlio, from the first, created man with social instincts and placed him under social relations (when men were few, the patriarchal, as they increased, the commonwealth). It teaches that some form of social government is as original as man himself. If asked, whence the obligation to obey the civil magistrate, it answers : from the will of God, which is the great source of all obligation. The fact that such obedience is greatly promotive of human convenience, well-being and order, con- firms and illustrates the obligation, but did not originate it. Hence, civil government is an ordinance of God ; magistrates rule by His providence and by HlIS command, and are His agents or ministers. Obedience to them, in the Lord, is a reli- gious duty, and rebellion against them is not only injustice to our fellow-men, but disobedience to God. This is the theory plainly asserted by Paul, Rom. xiii : 1-7, and i Peter ii : 13-18 It may be illustrated by the parental state.

This account of the matter has been also pushed to a mosi

864 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

f • ■ vicious extreme, by the party known as Le- ^ Theory of Divine gitimatists, or advocates of the Divine right of royalty. The Bible here teaches us, they assert, that the power the civil magistrate holds, is in no sense delegated from the people, but wholly from God ; that the people have no option to select or change their form of govern- ment, any more than a child has to choose its parent, or a soul the deity it will worship; that no matter how oppressive or unjust the government may be, the citizen has no duty nor right but passive submission, and that the divinely selected form is hereditary monarchy — the form first instituted in the hand of Adam, continued in the patriarchal institution, re-affirmed in the New Testament, and never departed from except by heaven- defying republicans, &c.

This servile theory we easily refute by many facts. Men P r ■ ii"i society do not bear to rulers the relation

of children to parents, either in their greater weakness, inferiority of knowledge or virtue, or in the natural affection felt for them, but are, in the general, the natural equals of their rulers. Hence, the argument from the family to the commonwealth to prove that it is monarchical, utterly fails. 2d. The chosen form given by God to the Hebrew Commonwealth was not monarchical, but republican. And when He reluc- tantly gave them a king, the succession was not hereditary, but virtually elective, as witness the cases of David, Jeroboam, Jehu, &c. 3d. The New Testament does not limit its teachings to the religious obligation to obey kings, but says generally ! " the Powers that be are ordained of God." " There is no power but of God ": thus giving the religious source, equally to the authority of kings and constables, and giving it to any form of government which providentially existed de facto. The thing then, which God ordains, is not a particular form of gov- ernment, but that men shall maintain some form of govern- ment. Last, it is peculiarly fatal to the Legitimatist theory that the actual government of Rome, which the New Testament immediately enjoined Christians to obey, was not a legitimate, nor a hereditary monarchy, but one very lately formed in the usurpation of Octavius Caesar, and not in a single instance trans- mitted by descent, so far as Paul's day.

On the contrary, while we emphatically ascribe the fact of civil government and the obligation to obey PelpTe.^"^"" ^°' *^ it, to the will of God, we also assert that in the secondary sense, the government is, poten- tially, the people. The original source of the power, the authority and the obligation to obey it, is God, the human source is not an irresponsible Ruler, but the body of the ruled themselves, that is, the sovereignty, so far as it is human, resides in the people, and is held by the rulers, by delegation from them. It is, indeed, the ordinance of the supreme God, that

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 865

such delegation should be made, and the power so delegated be obeyed, by each individual ; but still the power, so far as it is human, is the people's power, and not the ruler's. This is proved by two facts. All the citizens have a general native equality ; they possess a common title, in the general, to the benefits of existence, as being all human beings and children of a common Creator. They are all alike under the golden rule, which is God's great charter of a general equality. Hence the second fact, that the government is for the governed, not for the especial benefit of the governors. The object of the institution, which God had in view, was the good of the community. The people are not for the rulers, but the rulers for the people. This is expressly stated by Paul, Rom. xiii : 3, 4. Now, as before stated, the rulers have no monopoly of sense, virtue, experience, natural right, over their fellow-citizens, and hence the power of selecting rulers should be in the citizens.

Having thus cleared the Scriptural theory from the odious Social Contract Re- perversions of the advocates of " legitimacy," futed. ist. Not Found- I proceed to affirm it against the vain dream ed on Facts. ^f ^ social contract, and the theory of obh-

gation based upon it. ist. It is notoriously false to the actual facts. Civil government is not only a theory, but a fact ; the origin of it can therefore be only found in a fact, not in a legal fiction. The fact is, that men never rightfully existed for one moment in the state of independent insulation, out of which they are supposed to have passed, by their own option, into a state of society. God never gave them such indepen- dency. Their responsibility to Him, and their civic relations to fellow-men, as ordained by God, are as native as their existence is. They do not choose their civic obligations, but are born under them ; just as a child is born to his filial obligations. And the simple, practical proof is, that if one man were now to claim this option to assume civic relations and obligations, or to decline them, and so forego the advantages of civic life, any civilized government on earth would laugh his claim to scorn, and would immediately compel his allegiance by force. The mere assumption of such an attitude as that imagined for the normal one of man, and of the act in which it is supposed government legitimately originates, would constitute him an outlaw ; a being whom every civil society claims a natural right to destroy ; the right of self-preservation.

The theory is atheistic, utterly ignoring man's relation to

his Creator, the right of that Creator to deter- 2d. Atheistic. ^j^^ under what obligations man shall live ;

and the great Bible fact, that God has determined he shall live under civic obligations.

It is utterly unphilosophical, in that, while the ethics of

government should be an inductive science,

3d. Not Inductive. ^^.^ ^j^^^^^ -^^ ^^^ ^^^ -^^ ^^^^, ^^^^^^ ^^St be,

55*

866 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

utterly devoid of experimental evidence ! Hence it has no claims to be even entertained for discussion, in foro scientice.

If the authority of laws and constitutions and magistrates originates in the social contract, then certain 4th. Inconsistent. n^Qst inconvenient and preposterous conse- quences would logically follow. One is, that however incon- venient and even ruinous, the institutions of the country might become, by reason of the changes of time and circumstance, no majority could ever righteously change them, against the will of any minority ; for the reason that the inconveniences of a bar- gain which a man has voluntarily made, are no justification for his breaking it. The righteous man must not change, though he has " sworn to his own hurt." Another inconvenience would be, that it could never be settled what were the terms agreed upon in the original social contract ; and what part of the existing laws were the accretions of time and of unwar- ranted power, save where the original constitution was in wri- ting. A worse consequence would be, that if the compact originated the obligation to obey the civil magistrate, then any one unconstitutional or unjust act of the ruler would break that compact. But when broken by one side, it is broken for both ; and allegiance would be wholly voided.

Last : The civil magistrate is armed with some powers, which could not have been created by a social contract alone ; because they did not belong to the contracting parties, viz : individual men cannot give, for instance, the right of life and death. No man's life belongs to him, but to God alone. He cannot transfer what does not belong to him ; nor can one say, that although the individual may not have the right to delegate away a power over his own life which he does not possess, yet the community may be justified in assuming it, by the law of self-preservation. For there is no community as yet, until this theory of its derivation from a social contract is established. There is only a number of individual, unrelated, independent men.

To elucidate and establish these ideas farther, let us inquire Natural Liberty What? ^hat is the true difference between man's Civil Liberty how Differ- natural liberty and his civil liberty. The i"g- advocates of the theory of a social compact

seem to consider, as indeed some of them define, men's natural liberty to be a freedom to do what they please. They all say that Government limits or restrains it somewhat, the individual sur- rendering a part in order to have the rest better protected. Hence it follows, that all gov^ernment, even the republican, being of the nature of restraint, is in itself a natural evil, and a natural infringement on right, to be endured only as an expedi- ent for avoiding the greater evil of anarchy ! Well might such theorists deduce the consequence, that there is no ethical ground for obedience to government, except the implied assent

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 86/

-of the individual; the question would be, whether it is not a surrender of duty to come under such an obligation ? They also, of course, confound a man's natural rights and natural liberties together ; th?y would be still more consistent, if, with their great inventor, Hobbes, they denied that there was any such thing as rights, distinct from might, until they were facti- tiously created by the restraints of civil government.

This view I consider, although embraced in part by the

current of Christian moralists, is only worthy

Radical Theory False, ^f ^^ atheist, who denies the existence of

True Stated. . . ' , . , ^

any origmal relations between the Creator

and creature, and of any original moral distinctions. It ignores the great fact, that man's will never was his proper law ; it simply passes over, in the insane pride of human perfectionism, the great fact of original sin, by which every man's will is more or less inclined to do unrighteousness. It falsely supposes a state of nature, in which man's might makes his right ; whereas no man is righteously entitled to exist in that state for one instant. But if you would see how simple and impregnable is the Bible theory of natural and civil liberty, take these facts, un- disputed by any Christian. The rule of action is moral : moral obligations are as original (as natural) as man himself. The practical source and measure of them is God's will. That will, ad initio, binds upon man certain relations and duties which he owes to God and to his fellow man ; and also defines his right, i. e., those things which it is the duty of other beings to allow him to have and to do. Man enters existence with those moral relations resting, by God's will, upon him. And a part of that will, as taught by His law and providence is, that man shall be a member of, and obey, civil government. Hence, government is as natural as man is. What then is man's natural liberty? I answer : it is freedom to do whatever he has a moral right to do. Freedom to do whatever a man is physically able to do, is not a liberty of nature or law, but a natural license, a natural iniquity. What is civil liberty then ? I reply still, it is (under a just government) freedom to do whatever a man has a moral right to do. Perhaps no government is perfectly just. Some withhold more, some fewer of the citizen's moral rights : none withhold them all. Under all governments there are some -rights left ; and so, some liberty. A fair and just government would be one that would leave to each subject of it, in the general, (excepting exceptional cases of incidental hardship,) freedom to do whatever he had a moral right to do, and take away all other, so far as secular and civic acts are concerned. Such a government, then, would not restrain the natural liberty of the citizens at all. Their natural would be identical with their civic liberty. Government then does not originate our rights, neither can it take them away. Good government does

868 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

originate our liberty in a practical sense, i. e., it secures the exercise of it to us.

The instance most commonly cited, as one of a natural No Natural Ricrht - right Surrendered to civil society, is the right Sacrificed to Just Gov- of self-defence. We accept the instance, eminent. ^^^ assert that it fully confirms our view.

For if it means the liberty of forcible defence at the time the unprovoked aggression is made, that is not surrendered ; it is allowed under all enlightened governments fully. If it mean the privilege of a savage's retaliation, I deny that any human ever had such a right by nature. " Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." If it mean the privilege to attach the righteous tempo- ral penalty, and execute it ourselves, on the aggressor, so as to deter him and others from similar assaults, I deny that this is naturally a personal right ; for nothing is more unnatural than for a man to be judge in his own case. Other instances of sup- posed loss of natural rights are alleged with more plausibility ; as when a citizen is restrained by law from selling his corn out of the country, (a thing naturally moral per sc) from some eco- nomic motive of public good ; and yet the righteous citizen feels bound to obey. I reply : if the restriction of the govern- ment is not unjust, then there exists such a state of circum- stances among the fellow citizens, that the sale of the corn out of the countr}^, under those circumstances, would have been a natural breach of the law of righteousness and love towards them. So that, under the particular state of the case, the man's natural right to sell his corn had terminated. Natural rights may change with circumstances.

Here we may understand, in what sense " all men are by nature free and equal." Obviously no man Natural Equality what? j |^ nature free, in the sense of being born Golden Rule. . •' . -' ., ,. , ,

m possession oi that vile license to do what- ever he has will and physical ability to do, which the infidel moralists understand by the sacred name of liberty. For every man is born under obligation to God, to his parents, and to such form of government as may providentially be over his parents. (I may add the obligation to ecclesiastical government is also native). But all men have a native title to that liberty which I have defined, viz : freedom to do what they have a moral right to do. But as rights differ, the amount of this freedom to which given men have a natural title, varies in different cases. But all men are alike in this ; that they all have the same gene- ral right by nature, to enjoy their own natural quanta jn of free- dom, be it what it may. Again : are all men naturally equal in strength, in virtue, in capacity, or in rights ? The thought is preposterous. The same man does not even continue to have the same natural rights all the time. The female child is born with a different set of rights in part, from the male child of the same parents ; because born to different native capacities and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 869

natural relations and duties. In what then are men naturally equal ? I answer, first : in their common title to the several quantiims of liberty appropriate to each, differing as they do in different men ; second, they are equal in their common humanity, and their common share in the obligations and bene- fits of the golden rule. All men are reciprocally bound to love their neighbors as themselves ; and to do unto others, as they would that others should do to them. See Job xxxi : 13-15. Here inspiration defines that equality as in full force between master and slave ; and as entirely compatible with that relation. Here is the great charter of Bible republicanism. Men have by nature, a general equality in this ; not a specific one. Hence, the general equality of nature will by no means produce a lite- ral and universal equality of civil condition ; for the simple reason that the different classes of citizens have very different specific rights ; and this grows out of their differences of sex, virtue, intelligence, civilization, &c., and the demands of the common welfare. Thus, if the low grade of intelligence, virtue and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare (taking the " general run" of cases) and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom ; then the law decided correctly, that the African here has no natural right to his self-control, as to his own labour and locomotion. Hence, his natural liberty is only that which remains after that privilege is retrenched. Still he has natural rights, (to marriage, to a livelihood from his own labour, to the Sabbath, and to the service of God, and immor- tality, &c., &c). Freedom to enjoy all these constitutes his natural liberty, and if the laws violate any of it causelessl}^, they are unjust.

The two remaining questions are more practical, and may

be discussed more briefly. We discard the Civil GXnmenr°^ theocratic conception of civil government.

The proper object of it is, in general, to secure to man his life, liberty, and property, i. e., his secular rights. Man's intellectual and spiritual concerns belong to different jurisdictions ; the parental and the ecclesiastical. The evidence is, that the parental, and the ecclesiastical departments of duty and right are separately recognized by Scripture and distinctly fenced off, as independent circles. (See also Jno. xviii : 35, 36; Luke xii : 14 ; 2 Cor. x : 4 ; Matt, xxii : 21). The powers of the civil magistrate then, are limited -by righteousness, (not always by facts) to these general functions, regulating and^ adjudicating all secular rights, and protecting all members of civil society in their enjoyment of their several proper shares thereof. This general function implies a number of others ; . prominently, these three : taxation, punishment, including capi- tal for capital crimes, and defensive w^ar. For the first, (see Matt, xxii : 21 ; Rom. xiii : 6, 7 ;) for the second, (see Gen. ix :

8/0 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

5, 6 ; Num. xxxv : 33 ; Rom. xiii : 1-5 ;) for the third, (Ex. xvii : 9, and passim in Old Testament ; Luke iii : 14, 15 ; Acts x : I, 2). The same thing follows from the power of capital punishment. Aggressive war is wholesale murder. The magis- trate who is charged with the sword, to avenge and prevent domestic murder, is a fortiori charged to punish and prevent the foreign murderer.

But, few governments are strictly just; and the inquiry Duty of Christians therefore arises : How shall the Christian to Unjust Civil Gov- citizen act, under an oppressive command of emment. ^^ cw'A magistrate ? I reply, if the act

which he requires is not positively a sin per se, it must be obeyed, although in obeying we surrender a clear, moral right of our own. The proof is the example of the Bible saints — - the fact that the very government to which Paul and Peter chal- lenged obedience as a Christian duty, was far from being an equitable one; and the truth that a harsh and unjust govern- ment is a far less evil than the absence of all government. The duty of obedience, does not, as we have seen, spring out of our assent, nor from the government's being the one of our choice, but from the providence of God which placed us under it, coupled with the fact that government is His ordinance. If the thing commanded by the civil magistrate is positively sinful, then the Christian citizen must refuse obedience, but yield sub- mission to the penalty therefor. Of course, he is entitled, while submitting either in this or the former case, to seek the peaceable repeal of the sinful law or command ; but that he is bound to disobey it in the latter case, is clear from the example of the apostles and martyrs : Acts iv : 19 ; v ; 29 ; and from the obvious consideration, that since the civil magistrate is but God's minister, it is preposterous God's power committed to him should be used to pull down God's authority. But does not the duty of disobeying imply that there ought to be an immunity from penalty for so doing? I reply, of course, in strict justice, there ought ; but this is one of those rights which the private Chris- tian may not defend by violence, against the civil magistrate. The magistrate is magistrate still, and his authority in all things, not carrying necessary guilt in the compliance, is still binding, notwithstanding his unrighteous command. To suffer is not sin per se : hence, although when he commanded you to sin, you refused, when he commands you to suffer for that refusal, you acquiesce. It should- be again remembered, that an unjust government is far better than none at all. It is God's will that such a government, even, should be obeyed by individuals, rather than have anarchy. If a man holds office under a govern- ment, and the official function enjoined upon him is positive sin, it is his duty to resign, giving up his office and its emoluments, along with its responsibilities, and then he has no more concern with the unrighteous law than any other private citizen. That

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 871

concern is simply to seek its repeal by constitutional means. If

the majority, or other controlling force in the constitution make

that appeal unattainable for him, then the private citizen is clear

of the sin, and has no concern with the sinful law. He is neither

bound, nor permitted to resist it by force. But for an official

of government to hold office, promise official obedience, and

draw his compensation therefor, and yet undertake to refuse to

perform the official duties of his place, on the ground that his

conscience tells him the acts are morally wrong ; this is but a

disgusting compound of pharisaism, avarice and perjury. Thus

we have, in a nutshell, the true doctrine of a " higher law," as

distinguished from the spurious.

One more question remains : Who is to be the judge when

^. ,, f^. , T ^ the act required of the citizen by law is Right of Private Tude- n ^t i .1 •■• ,.

ment Asserted. morally wrong ? I reply, the citizen himself,

in the last resort. This is the great Protes- tant and Scriptural doctrine of private judgment. We sustain it by the obvious fact, that when the issue is thus made between the government and its citizen, if that is to be absolute judge in its own case, there is an end of personal independence and liberty. But the government's judgment being thus set aside, there remains no other human umpire. 2d. Every intellio-ent being lies under moral relations to God, which are immediate and inevitable. No creature in the universe can answer for him, in a case of conscience, or step between him and his guilt. Hence, it is the most monstrous and unnatural injustice that any power should dictate to his conscience, except His divine Judge. See Prov. ix : 12 ; Rom, xiv : 4. The clear example of Bible saints sustains this, as cited above ; for while they clearly recoo-- nized the legitimacy of the magistrate's authority, they claim the privilege of private judgment in disobeying their commands to sin. If it be said that this doctrine is in danger of intro- ducing disorder and insubordination, I answer, no; not under any government that at all deserves to stand ; for when the right of private judgment is thus exercised, as an appeal to God's judgment, and with the fact before our faces, that if we feel bound to disobey the law, we shall be still bound to submit meekly to the penalty, none of us will be apt to exercise the privilege too lightly.

Thus far, we have considered the individual action of the f R V lu ^^^^^^^ towards an unrighteous government, tion DislusSed. ^^° ^' and have shown that, even when constrained to disobey an unrighteous law, he must sub- mit to the penalty. Do we then inculcate the slavish doctrine of passive obedience, which asserts the divine and irresponsible right of kings, so that even though they so abuse their powers that the proper ends of government are lost, God forbids resist- ance ? By no means. To Americans, whose national existence and glory are all founded on the " right of revolution," slight

8/2 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

arguments would probably be needed to support it. But, it is the duty of thinking men to have some better support for their opinions, than the popularity of them.

The argument for passive obedience, from Romans 13, is Argument for Pas- ^^ ^^^^ view, plausible, but will not bear sive Obedience Re- inquiry. Note that the thing which is there f^^^'^'^- declared to be of divine authority, is not a

particular form of government, but submission to the govern- ment, whatever it is. God has not ordained what government mankind shall live under, but only that they shall live under a government. The end of government is not the gratification of the rulers, but the good of the ruled. When a form of gov- ernment entirely ceases, as a whole, to subserve its proper end, is it still to subsist forever ? This is preposterous. Who then is to change it? The submissionists say. Providence alone. But Providence works by means. Shall those means be exter- nal force or internal force? These are the only alternatives ; for of course corrupt abuses will not correct themselves, when their whole interest is, to be perpetuated. External force is unauthorized ; for nothing is clearer than that a nation should not interfere, uncalled, in the affairs of another. Again : we have seen that the sovereignty is in the people rather than the rulers ; and that the power the rulers hold is delegated. May the people never resume their own, when it is wholly abused to their injury? There may be obviously a point then where "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." The meaning of the apostle is, that this resistance must be the act, not of the individual, but of the people. The insubordination which he condemns, is that which arrays against a government, bad like that of the Csesars perhaps, the worse anarchy of the individual will. But the body of the citizens is the commonwealth ; and when the commonwealth arises and supersedes the abused authority of her public servants, the allegiance of the individual is due to her, just as before to her servants. But it may be asked, How can the commonwealth move to do this, except by the personal movement of individuals against the " powers that be ? " I answer, (and this explains the true nature of the right of revolution) : true : but if the individual moves, when he is not inspired by the movement of the popular heart ; when his motion is not the exponent, as well as the occasion, of theirs, he has made a mistake — he has done wrong — he must bear his guilt. It is usually said, as by Paley, that a revolution is only justifiable when the evils of the government are worse than the probable evils of the convulsive change ; and when there is a reasonable prospect of success. The latter point is doubtful. Some of the noblest revolutions, as that of the Swiss, were rather the result of indignation at intolerable wrong, and a gen- erous despair, than of this calculation of chances of success.

SYLLABUS

1. Establish the doctrine of Religious Liberty and the right of Private Judgment.

2. Discuss and refute the theory of Church Establishments held by Prelatists, and thd,t of Chalmers.

3. What are the proper relations between State and Church ? And what the powers and duties of the civil magistrate over ecclesiastical persons and property ?

Conf. of Faith, ch. 20, and ch. 23, ^ 3. Locke's first Letter on Toleration. Milton's Areopagitica, or Plea for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing. Vattel, Law of Nature and Nations, bk. i, ch. 12. Montesquieu Esprit dcs Lois, bk. XXV. Chalmers on Church Establishments. Gladstone's Church and State. Review of Gladstone, by Lord Macaulay.

"V^OU may suppose it superfluous to lecture on a subject so well understood, and universally admitted, as this is among us ; but you will be mistaken. Our Obsokte! ^"^'^°" """^ ancestors understood it, because they had studied it, with all the earnestness of perse- cuted men, who had to contend with sword and pen. We hold their correct theory ; but, it is to be feared, only by prescrip- tion and prejudice. Consequence : that when temptation comes, and the theory of religious liberty seems awkward just at a par- ticular juncture, we shall be carried about with any wind of doc- trine. This is ever the course ; for fundamental truths to be practically learned by one generation, handed down to the next, held by prejudice for a few generations, (the words used and sense dropped) and at last lost in practice.

Again, many, even of statesmen, do not defend Religious Liberty on sound and rational grounds. Even Brougham and Macaulay (see his History of England) seem not to have found out that the proposition, " man is not responsible' for his belief," is not the same with that of Religious Liberty.

The arguments by which Augustine induced persecution of the Donatists have ever been the staple ones votatfof'KrsStion." of the Roman Church, for intolerance. They are so wretched and flimsy, as to be unworthy of a separate discussion. Their answer will be ap- iparent in the sequel. But it should be observed, that the doc- trines of intolerance are consistent with the claims of the Romish Church to infallibility, and supremacy. A man ought not to have liberty to destroy his own soul by refusing the infal- lible teachings of God, on earth. This claim of infallibility puts the relations between the unbeliever and Church, on the same footing as those between the unbeliever and his God. To both he is guilty. But is the claim of infallibility to be im- plicitly admitted ? The answer to this question shows that a

873

8/4 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

denial of the right of private judgment, is essential to the Romanists' intolerance. For if the infallibility is to be brought into question, then the basis of the right to enforce absolute conformity is melted away.

A far more plausible argument for the right to enforce

religious conformity has been glaoced at by Heresy is Cnmmal. ^^^^^ Romish writers. It is hard to answer by many a Protestant, who inconsiderately ho^Js to Religious Lib- erty. Man is responsible for his belief. His religious error is not simply his misfortune, but his crime. Bad volitions are at the bottom. Truth is discoverable, certain. This crime has a very certain, though indirect evil influence ; not only on men's religious, but secular conducts and interests. The heretic injures the public morals, health, order, wealth, the value of real estate, &c., &c. He may be doing mischief on a far larger scale than the bandit. Now, if his religious belief is of a moral quality, voluntary and criminal ; and is also mischievous — highly so ; and that, to the interests both Church and State protect, why not punishable ? Why does it claim to be exempted from the list of offences amenable to law? The cruel abuses of the power of punishing heretics, by ignorant or savage rulers, are no argument against its use, any more than the Draconian pen- alties conclude against moderate power in the magistrate, of repressing secular crimes." Answer.

Every thing which is moral evil, and is detrimental to the

interests of society, is not, therefore, prop- Remedy^"'''' ^"' *' ^rly punishable by society (e. g. prodigality,

indolence, gluttony, drunkenness). The thing must be, moreover, shown to be brought within the scope of the penalties, by the objects and purposes of Government ; and the relevancy of corporeal pains and penalties to be a use- ful corrective ; and the directness of the concern of society in its bad consequences. Society may not infringe directly a nat- ural right of one of its members, to protect itself trom an indi- rect injury which may or may not occur. It only has a right to stand on the defensive, and wait for the overt aggression. It is not the business of society to keep a man from injuring him- self, but from injuring others. As to his personal interests he is his own master. Now, that religious error, though moral evil, voluntary and guilty, does not come within the above conditions, we will show, and at the same time will adduce arguments of a positive weight.

I. Premise. Church and State are distinct institutions. State and Church since theocratic institutions are done away; Have Different Ob- they have distinct objects. The Church is to j^^^^- teach men the way to heaven, and to help

them thither. The State is to protect each citizen in the enjoy- ment ot temporal rights. The Church has no civil pains and penalties at command ; because Christ has given her none ; and

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 8/5

because they have no relevancy whatever to produce her object — the hearty behef of saving truth (see John xviii : 36 , 2 Cor. X : 4, &c.). The main weapon of the Civil Government is civil pains and penalties (Rom. xiii : 4).

2. Premise. In the State, the good of the governed being the object, (in temporal interests) the gov- e"aS?SweS."'^ ^^^' erned are the earthly sources of sovereignty. Rulers have only a delegated power, and are the agents of the community, who depute to them, for the gen- eral good, so much of power as is necessary.

. Now, for the direct argument, observe : The Church's bear- ing penal power, and being armed with civil noSrPenlltS "''' P^i^s, is utterly inconsistent with her spirit- ual character, her objects, and the laws of Christ. Rome herself did not claim it. When the Church per- secutes, it is through the commonwealth. This lends its cor- poreal power to the Church. When Romish Priests persecute, they bear a twofold capacity, magisterial and clerical.

But, by what power shall the magistrate persecute his own

Sovereign ? Whence delegated ? All the

1. Magistrate has no i i • j i i. j -nt -i.- Spiritual Jurisdiction, power he has IS delegated. Now a citizen

cannot delegate to another the right of judg- ing for him what is right, because to do so is a self-contradic- tion, and unutterable absurdity ; and because to do so would be a crime. For the merit of all my religious belief and acting depends on my free, conscientious convictions ; and God has made me responsible for them, so that I cannot give away the responsibility.

By the same general fact, it appears that when intolerance

2. Nor Rif^ht to Ar- commands me to surrender my private judg- rest my Private Judg- ment in religion, it is_ to the Magistrate I sur- "^^"^' render it ; i. e., a man not sacred, nor even clerical, an officer purely secular, and even upon Romish teachings, no more entitled than me, to judge in religion. But, it is said, " the Magistrate persecutes not for himself, but on behalf of a Church infallible and divinely authorized, to which he has dutifully bowed, and lent his secular power, as he ought ; so that it is to this infallible Church we are compelled by the Magistrate's sword to surrender our private judgment." No ; how did the Magistrate find out that this Church is infallible ? Suppose I, the subject, choose to dispute it ? who shall decide between us ? Not the Church in question ; because the very question in debate between us is, whether the Church ought to be allowed a supreme authority over my, or his conscience. It is to the civil Magistrate's judgment, after all, that I am com- pelled to yield my private judgment, and that, in a thing purely religious.

The civil authority of the magistrate is not due to his Chris-

'876 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

tianity, but to his official character. This Even ctfstianf ^°' fo^lo^^'s from the entire distinctness of the

Church and State in their objects and charac- ters. It is proved by Scripture asserting the civil authority of Pagan magistrates; Matt, xxii : 21 ; Rom. xiii ; i Peter ii : 13. If we were citizens of a Mohammedan or pagan country, we should owe obedience to their civil rulers in things temporal. And this shows that the authority is not dependent on the mag- istrate's Christianity, even where he happens to be a Christian, Now what an absurdity is it, for that which is not Christian at all to choose my Christianity for me ? To see this, only sup- pose a case where the magistrate is actually infidel. The Greeks and Protestants in Constantinople struggle with each other. The Turk, more sensible than intolerant Christians, merely stands by and derides both. But suppose one of them should manage to get him on their side, and use his ternporal power to persecute their brethren? Can a Turkish infidel, who has nothing to do with Christianity, confer on one sect a power to persecute another? Confer what he has not? Outrageous. But the reason of the thing is the same in any other country ; because the civil authority of the magistrate is no more due to his Christianity than that of the Grand Turk in Turkey, who has no Christianity.

But suppose the persecuting Church repudiates the aid of

the magistrate, and claims that she herself, Shall Coerce ? ^ '^'°" ^^ ^ Spiritual power, is entitled to wield both

swords, temporal and spiritual, for suppres- sion of error, in person, as Rome does in some of her more im- perious moods. Then all the absurdities are incurred which arise from confounding the two opposite societies of Church and State and their objects ; and all the Scriptures above quoted must be defied. But other arguments, still more un- answerable, apply. Among competing religious communions, which shall have the right to coerce the other? Of course, the orthodox one. This is ever the ground of the claim. " I am right and you are wrong; therefore, I must compel you to think as I do." But each communion is orthodox in its own eyes. Every one is erroneous to its rivals. If Rome says, there are evidences of our being the apostolic infallible Church, so clear, that no one can resist them without obstinate guilt, Geneva says to Rome just the same. Whatsoever any Church believes, it believes to be true. There is no umpire under God ; shall the magistrate decide ? He has no right. He is not religious. There is no umpire. Each one's claim to persecute is equally good. The strongest rules. Might makes right.

But again : The Church cannot use persecution to gain her

end, which is the belief of religious truth ; ■;. Coercion Not a i ii.- i i i i.

Means to Faith. because penalties have no relevancy what-

ever to beget belief. Evidence begets con-

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 877

viction ; not fear and pain. While we do not think that beHef or unbeUef of moral truth is of no moral character, with- Brougham, we do know that it must be the voluntary, spon- taneous result of evidence, and that it must be rational. That a spiritual society, whose object is to produce moral beliefs, and acts determined thereby, should do it by civil pains, is an in- finite absurdity. This is enhanced by the other fact : that the virtue and efficacy of religious belief and acts before God de- pend wholly on their heartiness and sincerity. Feigned belief, unwilling service, are no graces, but sins : do not save, but damn. . . . Nor do persecutions have any preparing effect to open the mind to the rational and moral means which the Church is afterwards to use. This the Augustinian plea. To punish, imprison, impoverish, torment, burn a man, because he does not see your arguments as strong as you think them, is surely a strange way of making him favorable thereto ! To give him the strongest cause to hate the reasoner, is a strange way to make him like the reasonings! The most likely possible way is taken to give him an ill opinion of that communion he is wished to join. These measures have some natural tendency, on weak natures, to make hypocrites ; but none to make sin- cere believers.

Under this head, too, notice the outrageous impolicy of

. ^ . ,. persecuting measures. Supposinsf the doc- Persecution Prejudi- 'i ■ ^ji.u i.i

ces Truth. trmes persecuted to be erroneous, the very

way is taken to make them popular, by array- ing on their side the sentiments of injured right, virtuous indig- nation, sympathy with the oppressed, and in general, all the noblest principles, and to make the opposing truth unpopular^ by associating it with high handed oppression, cruelty, &c. The history is, that no communion ever persecuted which did not cut its own throat thereby unless it persecuted so as to crush and brutify wholly, and trample out all active religious life pro or con to itself The persecuting communion dies, either by the hand of the outraged and irresistible reaction it produces ; or if the persecution is thorough, by the syncope and atrophy of a spiritual stagnation, that leaves it a religious communion only in name. Of the former, the examples are the Episcopacy of Laud, in Scotland and England, Colonial Church of Virginia against Baptists, &c. Of the latter, the Popish Church of France, Spain, Italy. " The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."

All acts of religious intolerance are inconsistent with the relations which God has established between

6, Intrudes into God's Himself and rational souls. Here is the r rovincG.

main point. God holds every soul directly

responsible to Himself. That responsibility necessarily implies

that no one shall step in between him and his God, No one

can relieve him of his responsibility, answer for him to God, and

«7o SYLLABUS AND NOTES

bear his punishment, if he has betrayed his duty. Therefore no one should interfere to hinder his judging for himself. '•What hast thou to do, to judge another man's servant?" Here it is plain how essential the claim of infallibility is to a plausible theory of persecution. For a man who acknowledges himself fallible, to intrude his leadership by force on his fellow- man, who is no more fallible than himself, when it is possible he may thereby ruin his soul, is a position as satanic as impudent. But where the persecutor can say, " I know infallibly that my way is right, and if he will come into it he will certainly be saved," there is a little plausibility. But if infallibility is dis- proved, that little is gone. And more : Each man is directly bound to his God to render a belief and service hearty ; pro- ceeding primarily from a regard to God's will, not man's. Else it is sin. Now, how impious is he, who, professing to contend for God, thus thrusts himself between God and His creature ? Substitutes fear of him for fear of God? Thrusts himself into God's place ? He that does it is an anti-Christ. Man's belief is a thing sacred, inviolable.

7. Let it be added, also, that persecutions ruin that cause which they profess to promote, the cause of God, by demoral- izing the persecuting community. They tend to confound and corrupt all moral ideas in the populace, who see moral, merci- ful, peaceful men punished with the pains due to the most atro- cious crimes, because they do not take certain arguments in a certain way. They beget on the one hand subserviency, hypoc- risy, cunning, falsehood and deceit, the weapons of oppressed weakness ; and on the other, cruelty, unmercifulness, rapacity, injustice. Ages of persecution have always been ages of deep moral corruption ; and where persecution has been successful, it has plunged the nations into an abyss of vice and relaxed morals.

Again : we have hinted at the tendency of intolerance to disappoint its own ends. All history is a vaL DivSonr ^^^'^' Commentary on this. More persecution, the more sects, (except where it is so extreme as to produce a religious paralysis, and there there are no sects, because there is no belief, but only stupid apathy or secret atheism). Rome tried it to the full. And under her regime, Christendom was more and more full of sectaries, who increased till the freedom of the Reformation extinguished them : Wal- denses, Albigcnses, Cathari, Paulicians, Beghards, Fratricelli, Turlupins, Brethren of Free Spirit, Wickliffeites, Hussites, &c., &c. There have always been wider divergences of doctrinal opinion, within the bosom of the Romish Church itself, than there are now, betv.-een all the evangelical branches of the Protestant family, with all their freedom. And the effect of the Reformation, (most in freest countries), has been to kill off, or render perfectly impotent, all more extravagant and hurtful

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 879

sects. Where are any Turlupins, or mystical Pantheists like those of Germany of the 14th Century? Where any Schwes- triones? Manichaeans?

9. Religious sects are nearly harmless to the State, when they are no longer persecuted. It is wholly to their oppression that their supposed factiousness is due ; cease to oppress, and they become mild and loyal. This is just the absurd and treacherous trick of persecutors, to say, " conventicles are secret," when it is their oppression which makes them secret. They would gladly be open, if they might have leave. " Con- venticles are factious ;" it is injustice which makes them factious. Let the State treat all sectaries justly and mildly, and they at once have the strongest motive to be true to the State ; indeed, the same which the majority has; that of strongest self-interest. Persecution for conscience' sake is always supremely false and hypocritical, as appears by this fact. 10. Coercion Hypo- -pj^g motive assigned by persecuting religion- ists is, that the souls of men may be saved from the ruinous effects of error ; of the heretic himself, if he can be reclaimed ; of others whom he might corrupt, at any rate. But while they have been imprisoning, tormenting, burn- ing men of innocent morals, because they held some forbidden tenets, have they not always tolerated the grossest vices in those who would submit to the Church ? Adultery, profanity, violence, ignorance, drunkenness, gluttony? Was it not so during all the Inquisition in Spain and Italy, Laud's persecu- tions in England, James' in Scotland ? But a bad life is the worst heresy. Surely this destroys souls and corrupts commu- nities. Why do not these men then, who so vehemently love the souls of their neighbours, that they must burn their bodies to ashes, love the vicious enough to restrain their vices ? Per- secution for opinion's sake is wholly a political measure cloaked under religion. Its true object always is, to secure domination, not to save souls.

This, therefore, is the only safe theory. The ends of the State are for time and earth ; those of the Conclusion. Church are for eternity. The weapon of the

State is corporeal, that of the Church is spiritual. The two cannot be combined, without confounding heaven and earth. The only means that can be used to produce religious belief are moral. No man is to be visited with any civil penalty for his belief, as long as he does not directly infringe upon the purpose of the government, which is the protection of the temporal rights of his fellow-citizens. The State is bound to see that every man enjoys his religious freedom untouched, because the right to this religious freedom is a secular, or political right.

The doctrine of religious liberty was not evolved at the Reformation : Protestants held it a right and duty to persecute heretics. " Rome's guilt was that she persecuted those nearer

880 SYLLABUS AND NOTES.

right than herself, and did it cruelly and unjustly." The first treatise taking the true ground, as far as I know, was written by Brown (founder of sect of Brownists). Dr. Jno. Owen wrote for the same cause. Dr. Jeremy Taylor wrote his plea for liberty of prophesying. Milton and Locke are well known. Roger Williams, of Rhode Island, perhaps deserves the credit of being the first Ruler in the world, who granted absolute free- dom to all sects, having power to do otherwise.

The separation and independence of Church and State was

II. Church and State. "°^ ^^^X "^^ ^^'^^ doctrine of the Refor- The Protestant Churches mation. No Christian nation holds it to all Estabhshed. ^his day, except ours. In 17th and i8th

centuries some Independents and others in England, and Sece- ders in Scotland, advocated such separation, but were branded as outrageous radicals. All the Reformation Churches, Luthe- ran and Reformed, held it as an axiom, that the State had, under God, the supreme care of religion. " Cnjits Rcgio, ejus Religion Dissenters of England now usually hold our views. ( as well as Seceders in Scotland), called there voluntaryism. The Free Church, at the head of whom was Dr. Chalmers, held to establishments. Ours is the first fair trial.

Two theories of Church establishments prevail among.

Establislrments Justi- nominal Protestants. The higher is that fied by two Theories, squinted at briefly in Vattel, bk. i, ch. 12,. The Prelatic. g J29, and more fully developed by Glad-

stone, Church and State, Chap. 2. That the government is instituted for the highest good of the whole in every concern, and is bound to do all it has in its reach for this object, in every department. That a commonwealth is a moral person, having a personality, judgment, conscience, responsibility, and is there- fore bound, as a body, to recognize and obey the true religion. Hence the State must have its religion, as a State. This is a necessary duty of its corporate or individual nature. Hence it must profess this, by State acts. It must of course have a religious test for office, because otherwise the religious char- acter of the State would be lost ; and it must use its State power to propagate this State religion.

Let us discuss the abstract grounds of this theory first ; then take up the second, or freer theory of Church establish- ments, and conclude with some general historical views appli- cable to both theories.

Says Vattel : " If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation in her national capacity is-

Vattel's View. doubtless bound to serve and honour Him.

This is based on a general principle ; that all men are every- where bound by laws of nature ; and therefore the entire nation, whose common will is but the united wills of all the members, must be bound by these natural laws ; because the accident of- association cannot release men from bonds that are

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 88 1

universal." (See § 5). This is true in a sense, but not the sense necessary to prove a state rehgion obhgatory. So far as any acts of any associated body of men have any moral or re- ligious character, they should conform to the same moral and religious rules, by which the individuals are bound. But (a) the obligation is nothing else but the individual obligation of all the members, and nothing more is needed to defend or sanction it than their individual morality and rehgiousness. And (b) there are associations whose objects are not directly religious, but secular. How can they appropriately have a corporate religious character, when their corporate character has no direct refer- ence to religion.

Gladstone puts the same argument substantially, calling it , ,,. his eihical argument. "A State is a corpo-

Gladstone s View. ,. Ti. i. t^ • i .

ration. It has personality, judgment, reason,

foresight. Its acts have moral character. The only safe and sufficient basis of morals is Christianity ; therefore they should have Christian character. All things we do have religious rela- tions and responsibilities ; therefore the acts of rulers as such, should have a Christian character. In a word, a State is a moral person, corporately regarded, and like any other person, must have its personal Christian character. Else it is anti- Christian, and atheistic." Mr. Macaulay, (Ed. Review, 1839), so terribly damaged this argument, by pointing out that, by this reasoning, it was made the duty of armies, Banking, Insurance, Gas, Railroad, Stage Coach companies. Art Union, incorporate clubs, &c., &c., to have a corporate religion (consider the absurdities), that in his second edition, the author modified and fortified it. " These corporations are trivial, partial. Every- body not bound to belong to one ; their operations not far reaching, not of divine appointment, temporary. But there are two natural associations of men, alike in these three fundamen- tal traits. They are of divine appointment ; they are perpetual, they embrace everybody, i. e., every human being is bound to belong to them ; they are the family and the State. All good men admit that the family ought to have a family religion. The State, a similar institution, a larger family, ought to have a State- religion."

This is the only ingenious and plausible thing in his book. The nature of the reasoning compels us to discuss the funda- mental questions as to the constitution and objects of civil society. For our answer must take this shape. The family association is wholly dissimilar from the commonwealth ; because its direct objects are not the same. The source and nature of the authority are not the same. There is not the same inferi- ority in the governed to the governors ; and there is not the same affection and interest.

(Remember, however, the fact that all men are bound to be members of some family and State, has no relevancy to 56*

882 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

prove that these associations must have religious corporate character, unhke aU other partial societies. Nor does the fact that they are not voluntary, but of divine appointment ; because under certain circumstances, it may be of divine appointment that men should belong to an army ; and this does not prove that an army ought to profess a religion as such).

The object of the family as to children, is to promote their , ^, , whole welfare. The object of civil govern-

State and Church 4. • • i i-u i. i.- r ^ 1

have Different Ends. "i^^nt IS Simply the protection of temporal

rights against aggression, foreign or domestic. But this is just the view which all claimants for high powers in governments deny. Like Mr. Gladstone, they claim that the proper view of government is, that it is an association intended to take in hand all the interests and welfare of human beings, of every kind ; everything in which man is interested, and in which combination can aid in success, is the proper end of human government. It is to Uav : The total human association. Now, the plain answers to this are three : the Bible says the con- trary. Rom. xiii : 4. It is utterly impracticable ; for, by the necessary imperfection of human nature, an agency which is best adapted to one function must be worst adapted to others ; and an association which should do every thing, would be sure to do all in the worst possible manner. But last, and chiefly ; ii this is true ; then there cannot be any other association of human beings, except as it is a part and creature of the State. There is no Church. The State is the Church, and ecclesi- astical persons and assemblies are but magistrates engaged in one part of their functions. There is no such thing as the family, an independent, original institution of divine appoint- ment. The parent is but the delegate of the government, and when he applies the birch to the child, it is in fact, by State authority ! All combinations, to trade, to do banking business, to teach, to preach, to navigate, to buy pictures, to nurse the sick, to mine, &c., &c., are parts and creatures of the State ! Or if it be said that the State, though it has the right to do every thing, is not bound to do every thing, unless she finds it convenient and advantageous, then the ethical argument is relinquished ; and the ground of expediency assumed, on which we will remark presently. But the ethical argument fails, also, (a) In this : That it makes the right and duty of the Sultan to establish Mohammedanism ; the King of Spain, Popery ; Queen Victoria, Prelacy ; the E^mperor of China, Boodhism, &c. Julian was right in ousting Christians ; Theodosius, Platonists, Constantius, Athanasians ; Jovian, Arians. For if the State is a moral person, bound to have and promote its religion, the Sovereign must choose his religion conscientiously. The one he believes right, he must enforce. This is admitted by the advo- cates. Now, of all the potentates on earth, there is but one, that would conscientiously advocate what these men think the

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. .883

right religion — Prelacy. How sensible is that theory which, in the present state of the world, would ensure the teaching of -errors, by all the authority of the governments over all the world, except in one kingdom ?

(b) If strictly carried out, it would ensure the worst govern-

ing, and the worst preaching, possible. An on?Unfitfbfother.°^ organization intended for a particular end,

should choose agents best adapted to sub- serve that end, irrespective of other things. Otherwise, it will be miserably inefficient. And if it is best organized for that end, it must, for that very reason, be ill adapted to a different end. Hence, there should be no jumbling of functions ; but •each institution should be left to subserve its own objects. Sup- pose the British Government act out this theory. It^iust say to the skillful and honest financier : " You shall not help in my treasury, because you do not believe in Apostolic Succession ;" to the Presbyterian General : " I will have none of your courage and skill to release my armies from probable destruction, because you listen to a preacher who never had a Prelate's hand on his head ;" to the faithful pilot : " You shall not steer one of my ships off a lee shore, because you take the communion sitting," &c. How absurd; and how utter the failure of a government thus conducted !

(c) By the same reason that it is the duty, of the State to use a part of its power to propagate its religion, it is its duty to use all ; and the doctrine of persecution for opinion's sake is the necessary inference. For the State has power to fine,imprison,kill.

(Before we proceed to the more plausible and liberal theory advanced by Vattel, Warburton, Chalmers, Controut M^t?;.' '° &^- ^^t US notice a point urged by the first mentioned, in § 139, &c. : That there must •be a connection between Church and State, in order that the Sovereign may have control over ecclesiastics and religion. If ■men wielding such immense spiritual influences, are not held in official subordination to the Chief Ruler, he cannot govern the ■country. It would be a sufficient reply to say that Vattel knew Church officers, chiefly as Papists. Take away their power of the keys, their exemption from civil jurisdiction, and their ecclesiastical dependence on a foreign Pope, and the difficulty is gone. The minister of religion should be a citizen, subject to all laws, liable to be punished for any overt crime committed or prompted by him. This is subordination enough. As for th'e power still left him to inculcate doctrines of dangerous ten- dency, unchecked by the State, the proper defence is free dis- cussion. The medicine of error is not violent repression, but light. Let the Ruler content himself with protecting and dif- fusing free discussion. And again, Vattel's argument may, with equal justice, be extended to political teachers; and then the freedom of the press and of speech is gone).

884 OF LECTURES IX THEOLOGY.

But we come now to what we may call the Chalmerian:

theory. " The proper object of civil govern- Chalmers' View. ^ • > i ni.- -n^^^i

ment is man s secular well-bemg. But the

right to prosecute this, implies the right to perform all those functions which are essential to the main end — yea, the duty. Public morals are essential to the public welfare. The only source of public morals is Christianity. Christianity will not be sufficiently diffused, unless the State lends its aid and means to do it. Therefore it is right, yea, binding, that the State shall enter into an alliance with Christianity (in that form or forms best adapted to the end), to teach its citizens religion and mor- als, as a necessary means for the public good. To fail to do so, is for the State to betray its charge."

The contested point here, is in these propositions : That " voluntaryism " will usually fail to diffuse a sufficient degree of public morals ; and that a State-endowed Church, or Churches, of good character and spiritual independence will do it far bet- ter. And on this point, all the divisions of " Dissent," splitting up of small communities until the congregations are all too small to sustain themselves, the insufficiency of funds furnished by voluntary contribution, are urged, &c., &c.

Now, here we join issue, and assert; in the first place, that an endowed Church,' on this plan, will usually Effiden^'^''™ ^^°'' e^^ct ^^ss for true religion and public morals, than voluntary Churches, notwithstanding these difficulties. For remember that the State is, in fact, and must usually be, non-religious ; i. e., the Rulers themselves will usually have a personal character irreligious, carnal, anti- evangelical. What is the fact? How is the composition of governments determined ? By the sword, or by intrigue, by party tactics, by political and forensic skill, by the demands of secular interests and measures, by bribery, by riches and family,. by everything else than grace. It must be so ; for the assumed necessity for a State endowment and alliance is in the fact that the community is yet prevalently irreligious, and needs to be made rehgious. Now, all just government is representative. It must reflect the national character. To disfranchise, and shut out of office, citizens, because carnally minded, would be an absurd and impracticable injustice in the present state of communities. Now remember (Rom. viii : 7) : This enmity is innate, instinctive, spontaneous. If the State selects preachers,^ some individual officers of the State select them ; and th& least evangelical will most frequently be selected. Natural affinities of feeling will operate. Here, then, is one usual result of a Church establishment ; that of the men who are nominal mem- bers of the Church endowed, the least evangelical and useful will receive the best share of all that influence, power and money which the State bestows. Exceptions may occur : this is the general rule. What says History? Arians under Roman

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 885

Empire; ander Teuton Princes, High Church Arminians; worldly men ; semi-Papists in England ; Arminians in Holland ; Moderates in Scotland.

Again : The pecuniary support will be liberal and certain. ^ ^ Its tenure will be the favor of the Rulers ; Ease!'^ ^^^^^^ ^ "°^ °^ God's people. Hence carnally minded men will infallibly be attracted into the min- istry by mercenary motives : and the most mercenary will be the most pushing. Hence a progressive deterioration of the endowed ministry, as in English and all Popish and Lutheran Churches. Shall we be pointed to large infusion of excellent men in English and Scotch establishments? We answer, that their continuance is mainly due to the wholesome competition of Dissent. (Just the contrary of the plea, that the Establish- ment is worth its cost, by its wholesome influence in curbino" Dissent). And the proof is, that wherever Dissent has been thoroughly extinguished, the leaden w^eight of State patronage has in every case, brought down the endowed clergy to the ■basest depths of mercenary diaracter, and most utter ineffic- iency for all good. E. g., Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Russia.

Again : Just as soon as any Church is endowed, it is put in

,, ^ . an oppressive attitude towards all that part Endowment Unian- r .i «. -i. 1 j ^11 ■

and Oppressive. ^^ ^"^ comifiunity who do not belong to it, so

that prejudice will prevent much of useful- ness in its ministrations to them, and perpetually stimulate secession. That I should be taxed to pay for the preaching of doctrines which I do not believe or approve, is of the nature of an oppression. That my minister should have no lot nor part in the manse and salary provided at the common expense, but monopolized by another man who is willing to endorse some doctrine which I think erroneous, is an odious distinction. Indeed, it might be urged, as an independent argument against the mildest form of Church Establishment, that it implies some degree of oppression for opinion's sake ; it makes the State a judge, where it has no business to judge, and exercises partiality, where there should be equality. Nor will it at all answer to attempt to elude this difficulty, as in the colonial government of Massachusetts ; because this would enlist the State in the dif- fusion of error and truth alike ; a thing wicked ; and it gives to the worst forms of nominal Christianity a strength they would not otherwise have, because all the " Nothingarians," being compelled to support some Church, elect the one that has least religion.

And once more : The only fair experiment of full religious liberty, without Church and State, that of our country, proves, so far, that the voluntary system is more efficient than the en- dowed, in adequately supplying the growing wants of a nation. Let all denominations enjoy complete freedom and equality, and their differences become practically less, they approximate

886 SYLLABUS AND NOTES

to a virtual unity and peace on an evangelic ground, and their emulation and zeal do far more than the State could do. The fact is, that this day, notwithstanding our heterogeneous people, and immense growth, we have more gospel, in proportion to our wants, than any except Scotland. And in England and Scot- land almost all the enterprise, which has kept up with growth and evangelized new districts, has been either dissenting, or a sort of voluntaryism among Established Church people ; as in getting up the Quoad Sacra chapels in Scotland. Our success is the grand argument against State Churches.

But, second, and more conclusive. This union, on this The Endowed Clergy theory, between Church and State, necessi- Must be. Responsible to tates the surrender of the Churches spiritual the State. independence. It can no longer preserve

its allegiance to Jesus Christ perfect. The necessity of this allegiance we will not stop to prove. If the State employs a denomination to teach its subjects religion and morals, it is bound to have them well taught. The magistrate owes it to his constituents to see that the |Dublic money is well spent in teaching what shall be for the public good. And whether the doctrine taught is so or not, the magistrate must be the sover- eign judge under God. In other words, the preachers of this State Church are, in their ministerial functions, State officials, and, of course, should be subordinate, as to those functions, to the State. Responsibility must bind back to the source whence the office comes. But now where is this minsters's allegiance to Christ? Whenever it happens that the magistrate differs. from his conscience, he can only retain his fidelity to his Master by dissolving his State connection.

This was completely verified in the disruption of the Scotch Establishment. The British crovern-

Instance m Iree , ,• j'-i-,- •■ i

Church of Scotland. Hient Claimed jurisdiction over spiritual

affairs, which they supported by their salaries. The faithful men of the Free Church found that the only way to retain their allegiance to Christ was to relinguish their con- nection with the State. When the secession Churches now ex- claimed : " Here is an illustration of the incompatibility of spiritual independence and Church establishments," the Free Church men answered : " No. We admit that the jurisdiction of the State and its courts is just as to the temporal emolu- ments of a parish, but deny it as to the care of souls, or fitness for that care." But does not a suit about pay for value received necessarily bring into court the nature of the value received? Must not the magistrate who decides on the quid, decide on the pro quo ? The right of the State is to present to the Parish, and not to the salary of the Parish, only. The State has the same right to see the parochial duties performed by whom she pleases, as the salary enjoyed by whom she pleases.. In the incipiency of the English Establishment, the grand

OF LECTURES IN THEOLOGY. 88/

appeal of its advocates was to the example no\heScr?cy?" ^^^^^ ^f the Israelitish kingdom, where State and

Church were united so intimately. Hence were drawn all the arguments, nearly, for the King's headship over the Church. Hence Calvin's idea of State and Church. Nor is the argument yet given up. But the answer is, that a theocratic State is no rule for a State not theocratic. When a State can be shown, where there is but one denomination to choose, and that immediately organized by God Himself just then ; where there is an assurance of a succession of inspired prophets to keep this denomination on the right track ; where the king who is to be at the head of this State Church is super- naturaliy nominated by God, and guided in his action by an oracle, then we will admit the application of the case.

In conclusion : The application for such an alliance does not always come from the side of the Church. Commonwealths have sometimes been fonder of leaning on the Church than the Church on Commonwealths. Do not suppose that this question will never again be practical.

INDEX

A. Pages.

Abraham calling of '. 449 to 450.

Abrahamic covenant, Extant 781 to 785.

Abrogation of law disproved 633 to 634.

Acceptance involved in Justification 624 to 625.

Acts of Divine Essence classified 211.

Acts mixed in moral quality 668.

Active Righteousness of Christ Imputed 625 to 626.

Adam a Representative 304.

" had the Gospel after the Fall 445 to 449.

Adam's Natural Righteousness 295 to 296.

" Concreated Righteousness 296 to 297.

" Pelagian View of 296 to 297.

" Romish View of. 297.

" Orthodox View of Proved 297 to 300.

" Representation a Humane Plan ^SS-

Additions to Gospel at Abraham's Day 449 to 450.

" " Revelation at Sinai 452, &c.

Administrator of Sacraments 746 to 748.

Administrator, Necessity of his Intention 737 to 738.

Adoption what. ? 627

Adult Baptism 777 to 778.

Adultery, Guilt of 407 to 408.

Advent of Christ 838'to 840.

Agency, God's in Acts of Free Agents 286 and 288.

" "in Spiritual Acts of Free Agents 286.

Agent of Effectual Calling 560.

" of Sanctification 665.

Alexander's Dr. A. View of Regeneration 570.

" " Definition of Saving Faith 603 to 607.

Amyraut Moses. Scheme of Decree 235.

Angels 264 to 275.

" Personality of. 264*

" Existence of Reasonable 265.

" Date of Creation of 265.

" Qualities of 265 to 266.

" Intelligence of 267.

" Power of 267 to 268.

" Orders of 268.

" First Estate and Probation of 269 to 270.

" Occupations of 270.

" Election of. 230.

Angels. Evil 271 to 275.

" " Powers of 272 to 275.

Angels Good ; How concerned in Christ's Redeeming Work 536.

Angel of Covenant is Divine 481.

Animals may be killed 400 to 401.

Annihilation, Atheist'- best Hope 62.

Answers, several, to Justice of Imputation 340 to 388.

Anthropomorphism of our Theology Lawful 294 to 295.

" of Theistic Argument Considered 34 to 35.

Appendix I to Lecture 23d on Geological Hypothesis 256, etc.

" II to Lecture 62 748, etc.

Apostolic Succession and Sacramental Grace 748 to 757.

Apostasy of David, Peter, etc. explained 695.

A posteriori Argument for God's Existence 8 and 13 to 16.

A priori Argument 8 to 9.

Archangel. Who 268.

890 INDEX,

Arianism 1 76^

Arminian Scheme of Predestination 236, etc^

" Refuted 236 to 238.

Amiinian Theories of Fall 315 to 316.

" " of Redemption 579 to 599.

" " of Justification 631 to 639.

" " of Defectibility of Believers 689 to 690.

" " of Believers' Assurance 701 to 710.

Assurance of Grace and Salvation 698 to 713.

" Distinguished from Saving Faith .' 611.

" Popish Doctrine of 70X.

' ' First Reformers' Doctrine of 701.

" Not of the Essence of Faith 702 to 704.

" Arminian Doctrine of 701 to 7.10.

'' Acquirement of Feasible 706 to 707.

" Agent and Means of 708 to 712.

" Effects of Holy 712 and 713,

Atheism and Theory of Infinite Series 19 to 22.

" is Despair 62.

" is alw ays ephemeral 63 to 64.

Atomic Theory of Universe 249.

Attributes of God 38 to 53 and 147.

" How related to Essence 148.

" How classified 149 to 150.

" Given to Christ 191.

Augustine's Theory of Unity of Race in Imputation 339 to 340.

Axioms are Primitive Judgments 83, etc.

B.

Baird, Dr. S. J. Theory of Imputation 339 to 340.

Baptism 758 to 799.

Of perpetual obligation 758 to 760..

Meaning of 759.

Source of in Jewish Purifications 759 to 760.

Does not specially commemorate Christ's Burial and Resurrection76o to 763.-

Nature of John's 763.

Intent of Christ's reception of 763 to 764.

Mode of. Real Question of 764 to 777^

Should suit all Climates and Ages 768.

Symbolical meanings of 768 to 771..

Figurative cases of 771 to 773.

In Patristic Churches 775 to 777.

Is Purification 773.

Not inappropriate to Infants 778 to 780.

Subjects of 777 to 799.

Of Proselytes and their children 789 to 790.

Of families or Houses 790.

Of Infants in Primitive Church 791 to 792.

Of Infants, has not corrupted Church 792 to 794.

Baptized Children ; How related to Church 794 to 799.

Baptismal Regeneration 739 to 745 and 759.

Bairru, Ccttt/Cw, etc 764 to 767.

Benefits received by Saints at Death 820 to 82 1.

Benevolence of God 52 and 169 to 171.

Benevolence. Scheme of Ethics 100 to 104.

Bentham, Jeremy 100 to 104.

Bible does not teach Physics 257.

" uses popular names of Phenomena 257.

Bledsoe, A. T., LL. D. Theory of VoHtion 132.

Blessedness of the Redeemed 849 and 852.

Blindness of Mind Explained 578 to 579.

Bondage of Old Testament exaggerated 458 to 460.

Bound, Dr. N. On Sabbath Obligations 374.

Brain, not Consciousness, but Instrument of 69 to 70.

Breaking of the Bread, in Supper Soo to 802.

Breckinridge, R. J., D. D. Argument for Existence of God 12 to 13.

Brown. Dr. Tho's. Sentimental Ethics 1 14 to 116.

Brutes : are they Immortal ? 72.

INDEX. °91

-. ,1 - 417 to 418.

Buying and Selling, when Lawful

C.

, „ , , 554 to 555-

Call, common and effectual. g ^^^ ^gg.

Calvin on Lord's day. Obligations .'.... 809 to 814.

" His Doctrine of Real Presence r.--:-^ fw;;/' ca-y.

Calvinistic Doctrine of New Birth consistent with Nature of ^^lll.... --■-■■^^

Capital Punishments Lawful 86 to 91.

Cause, BeUef in Intuitive ] ' 279, etc.

Causes, Natural, or Second r ;;'■ 469.

Chalcedon. Decree of, on Hypostatic Umon .■;■.■.■..■.■■■..■ 35 to 37.

Chance no Cause ••••;, \ 747-

» Character " not imprmted by Sacraments . . 750 to 757-

Charisms of Holy Ghost, what ? gig.

Chastisements, how explained ."'.'..'.".'.".'.' 268.

Cherubim, what ? ; ",' ' ' '• " '1 778.

Children of Impenitent Baptized, not to be baptized ...... .^ ■.■.■.:■.■.::;■.*.■... 183, etc.

Christ Divine 485 to 486.

" A true Priest • • • • •••;•.• • • • ' " 505.

' ' Suffered the veiy Penalty of His People ••••••• 1 84, etc.

Christ's Pre-existence ;• ' r ••V^" "y' .. c^c, etc.

" Own Declaration of Design in His Sacrifice .-^^5^5, ^^^_

" Humiliation .".'.'.'.'.' 547-

" ExaUation _ ■_'_"_ 546 to 547.

'< Descent into Hades .".'.'.".'.".'.'.... 549 to 550-

" Intercession • ^ ccq to 553.

Kingdom Mediatorial.. ...... ■ . 625 to 626.

" Righteousness Active and Passive 763 to 764.

" Baptism by John what ? .".",".838 to 840.

" Second Advent • •. 481.

Offices Three,Prophet, Priest, King ••■ ^g^_

" Anoindng, what, and Times '..'.".'.*.. 726 to 727.

Church Defined " ] ] ''"' 880 to 887.

Church-Estabhshments ■ ' " ' ' ' ' 499.

Circumcision • _'_ '_ 866 to 867.

Civil Liberty what ' ' 862 to 872,

Civil Magistrate, The.. ' 870 to 871.

Citizen's Duty, how limited ..,......•■. g to lO-

Clark^ Dr. S., Argument for God's Existence ^ ^^^^

Claude Pajon's View of Regeneration -^ •■• •■• '^ ^^g_ ^^^_

Commandments Ten _' " '' " ^58 to 360.

Commandment, First _■_■■'_' 361 to 363.

' ' Second, 364.

" Third '.!!'..'.'. '.'.'.'366 to 397.

" Fourth ■ ■ y 298, etc-

" Fifth ■ ■_■_ '_ '_ 400, etc.

" Sixth _■/ ■_■ 406 to 414.

" Seventh •••.• •• ...414.

Seventh to be preached with sanctity .■.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.414 to 418.

<« Eighth • ■ Y_ ' ^ 419 to 426.

" Ninth .'.".'.'.' 426 10428.

«' Tenth...... •••••••••:•; ' 426 to 427.

. '' Tenth Divided by Papists ^54 to 555.

Common Call, Differs from Effectual .■.■.■.■ V. .■.■.■.555 to 559-

" Design of God in 556 to 557.

" God sincere in . . c:c;6 to SS7-

" of Lost taught in bcripture ^^ ^-^

" " Confirmed by analogy '" " " _ _ ^^g_

«' " Always conditional • • • • • '"''^^^ to 585.

Common Sufficient Grace 816.

Communion in Both Kinds " 586.

Concilia Perfedionis • .■.'.■133 to 136; 308 to 309.

Concupiscence is Sin • • • • • 286 to 291.

Concursus, Turrettin's Doctrme of . . . . . . •••••;•• ' ; ; 435 to 437-

Conditions between Parties, mCovenant of Giace • . • • • ^^^-»^^ ^^^^

Conditions required ot man, in . cia.

Conciition ^^ 1^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^.^^,^ Substitution .■■;..... 589 to 592.

Conditional Election rejected

-892

Conditional Decree rejected 212, etc.

Conscience. ... 117 to 119.

Consecration of Bread and Wine 802.

Consensus Populoru7n ' 17.

Consubstantiation 808.

Correlation of Forces. Argument of Materialists 55 to 56.

Covenant of Works, gracious 302.

" " " Defined and Proved 303 and 304.

" '• " Condition and Seal of 304 and 305.-

" " " Benevolent in Plan 336 to 337.

" " " Is it abrogated ? 635 to 636.

Covenant of Grace ; 429 to 463.

" " " Same in both Testaments 441 to 443.

" " " Opinion of Socinians and Immersionists on 441 and 442.

" " " Parties to and Motives of 434 to 435.

Covenant, strictly what ? 431.

" Is a Dispensation of Grace such 431,

" of Grace and Covenant of Redemption Discriminated 432 to 434.

" of Redemption is the Decree 430.

Coveting is Sin 308 to 309.

Creation 247, etc.

" Meaning of term in Scripture 247 to 248.

" was ex Nihilo 248.

" was lor a Moral End 263.

" of Man 292, etc.

Creationism (of Souls). Doctrine of 317 to 321.

Creative Week, and Interpretations of '. 254 to 255.

Creatures, cannot be enabled to create 251.

Cup, belongs to beheving Laity also S16.

D.

Daemons 271 to 275.

Death and 'Suffering always Penal 301 to 302.

" of Believers 817 to 821.

" of the Justified, how explained 818.

Decalogue 351, etc.

" A summary of all Duty 354 to 355.

" How Divided 355.

•' Rules for interpreting 355 to 356.

'• Could only be from God 427.

Deception : always Sinful ? 424 to 426.

Decree of God 211, etc.

" ' " Proved 211 to 212.

" " " Is it essentially in God ? 212 to 213.

" " " Effective and Peimissive 213 and 214.

" " " Properties of 214 and 220.

" '• " Objections against 220 to 223.

Decrees Prohibited for Marriage 412 to 414.

Demoniacal Possessions 273 to 274.

De Moor on Imputation 357.

Depravity Total 323, etc.

" " Proved 324 to 328.

Desert of All Sin 427 to 429.

Design of Christ's Sacrifice Inferred from actual Results 528, 529.

" " " To be explained by motives of Div. volition of 529 to 533.

" " " As explained by Christ Himself, Jno. iii : 16-20 535.

Cl^iadrjKi], what ? 431 to 432.

Dick, Dr. Views of Regeneration 569 to 570.

Differences of Old and New Testaments 452 to 462.

Discipline of Baptized Children 795 to 799.

Dispensations of Covenant only Two. Why ? 444 to 445.

" of 1st Covenant. How subdivided ? 445 to 449.

" of Covenant of Grace 442 to 453.

Disposition regulative of Will 130, etc., 594, etc.

Divinity of Christ, Ar ,ued under 5 heads 183, etc.

" " " In Old Testament 1S5, etc.

" " " of Holy Ghost 197, etc.

Divorce, Doctrine of in both Testaments 40S to 410.

893

360.

Aor?.f m of Papists . ^q^ ^q 406.

Duelling is Murder ...... . . .... . • • ■.■.■.■.■.■.'.'. V. . . 854 to 861.

Duration of Punishment of Wicked .!.... 54.

Duties deduced from Natural Theology ^^

E.

692.

Earnest of Holy Ghost / V" " ' ' / '^'r.1. -^^8 t<i 339.

Edwards, Jonathan. View of ImP"tat^°" ; ; ;■.;... 100 to 104.

His Theory of Vutue -^i-:. to "i-"

Effects of first Sin on Adam... *;; " ';:VpVaai;n^ ! '. .".■.314 to 315'.

» " on his Posterity, according to Pelagian* -i c to "^16

u " " according to Arminians •:> -> ^^^'

" " according to Wesleyans V.A'to"^!?"

" according to Orthodox '..... Ah-

Effective Decree .'.".".'553 to 579.

Effectual Calling •••• 560 to 561.

" Agent and Instrument ot 3 ^.

" Orthodox and Pelagian Views of • • • •- ^ '

" is by Almighty Grace ._. ^6q to ^70.

" By Mediate, or Immediate grace 509 Jo b/V^

Efficacy of Sacraments what? '^^-^ ^^ ^jg^

Efficiency of all God's Decrees . g^j ^^ gQ2.

Elements in Sacraments, why chosen ! / y' ^ ^34, etc.

Election Defined, and Proved .' ." ! '. . . 230 to 231, etc.

of angels, Like and Unhke Man s ^J •> 'ggg_

Equahty of men, Natural, what ? • • • • • ' * " * *_ " ' " " *_ jy^'_

Essence Defined _. ■//_ 205, etc.

Eternal Generation of Son .... 4C0 to 451..

Eternal Life held out to Patriarchs ■.'.■.'.■.'.".'. 38 and 152.

Eternity of God _' ' 215.

" of Decree ; .. 16 to 17.

Ethical argument for God's existence "..... 96 to 1 16.

" Theories discussed £,g j^^ ^(,g_

Eutychian View of Christ's Person • _ _ _ ^.^^ ^^^^

Evangehcal Repentance 854 to 862.

Everlasting Punishments 423.

Evil Speaking, Sin of . . . . " 26 to 38.

Evolution, modem, rejected • ^^^^ g^c.

Exaltation of Christ _■_■■_■ _'_ _ _ ggg to 687.

Example of Christ .^ [ 518, etc.

" Extent of Atonement " .•••••• " "■•t; i' ■■„■*' !;i9.

" Theories of semi-Pelagians 3 ^^

(t «« of Wesleyans ^^T

of Amyraut, e;c ;:::.".: .■.'520 ;nd523.-

of Orthodox di7 to 418

Extortion, Sins of Against Eighth commandment 't /

Faith. Temporary, Historical, of Miracles, Saving • • • • _ _ 5^1 _

Christ the object of Saving . 602 to 603.-

Faith Saving, must be explicit • • • • • • ^ ^ 5o-,

" A complex of Intelligence and W ill J ''_

" Result of New Birth -.q

" What ; if grace only Mediate • • • ' ' " g^

Embraces Christ in all offices ^ ^^-^^

u " Instrument of Union to Christ ^^^

" Why suitable Organ of Justification ••••- g_

" " Only organ of Justification ^^ ^

'< How Imputed for Righteousness ■.■■ ■•^- ■- - --^ ^-'^^;

Faith, implicit of Papists ".".'.',... i?!-

Faithfulness of God .........'. 306, etc.

Fall of Man '.'.'.'.'.' 789 to 790.

Family Baptisms • •;•••• 213.-

Fate, what ? Unlike Decree in what .' ■ • • gjp^

Fides Formata •••••. yjl to 773.

Figurative Baptisms point to Attusion • 93 to 94.

Final Cause, Doctrine of • • . . • _ _ ^^jq, etc.

First Sin of Man. 1st Element what

894 INDEX.

" " " How possible in a Holy Will ? 311 to 312.

" " " Effects of, on Adam and Posterity 312 to 314.

" " " Different Theories of 314 to 317.

Five Points and their Logical Source 580.

FoiTnula of Baptism 761 to 762.

" of Covenant of Grace , 437.

Fossils. Do not detennine Palasontology 292.

Free agency, Defined and Established 120 to 122.

Freedom 129.

Fruits meet for Repentance , 660.

G.

General Judgment 842 to 849.

Getieration of Son, opinions on 205, etc.

" " Socinian, Arian, Andover view of 206 to 207.

'• " Orthodox view proved 207 to 210.

Geologists should take Burden of Proof 258 to 259.

Geology as related to Gen. i 252, etc.

" " " Two schemes for Reconciling 253 to 255.

Geologic cosmogonies must concern Theology 256.

" " Clash with Westminster Confession 256.

" " To be treated with caution 257.

Geologic Hypotheses Logic of 259.

" " Invalid as against God 259 to 263.

Glory of God his Chief End 489 to 490,

Gnostic view of Christ's Person 467.

God. Is He cause of Sins ? 290 to 291.

God. How glorified in Christ's Sacrifice 536 to 538.

God. Is He only vera causa ? 280, etc.

God's agency in Acts of Free Agents 286, etc.

Goodness of God 1 70.

Good Works 660 to 686.

Good works must have what Traits ? 677 to 678.

Governmental scheme of Atonement i 508 to 509.

Grace in Regeneration Invincible 585 to 586.

Grace, and Graces \Vliat ? 170 to 172.

" Grahamites " anti-scriptural 401.

" Great Commission " 778 to 779.

•Guilt Defined, Potential, Actual 310 and 517.

H.

Hades, Doctrine of 823 to 824.

Hardening of Sinners, What ? 243.

Heathen not Salvable, while such 587.

Heaven 849, etc.

"" Higher Christian Life " 672 to 673.

" Higher Law." True Doctrine of 868 to 870.

Historical Faith 600 and 606.

Hobbes Thomas. Selfish System 97 to 99.

Hohness of God 172 to 173.

Holy Ghost. PersonaHty and Divinity of 193 to 197.

'Oiioovaiov To 17c.

Houses Baptized by apostles 789 to 790.

Howe, Rev. J's., Argument for God's Existence 10.

Hume David. Utilitarian Ethics 99 to 100.

" " Theory of Causation 87 to 90.

Humiliation of Christ 546 to 547.

Hutcheson's " Moral Sense " 113.

Huxley, Dr. Th. " Physical Basis of Life " 58, etc.

Hybrids refute Evolution 30.

Hypostatic Union 466 to 47c.

" " Views of Gnostics, Nestorians, Eutychians and Chalce-

don, on 467 to 469.

" " Socinian Cavils against 469 to 470.

Hypothetic Universalists 235, etc.

895

Idealist, his Pantheism - ^ 84°e1c'

Identity Intuitive • 8-710856

;' of Resurrection Body.. • .'. ••.:'. ■..'.■■.:'.■..■.■ 361 and 363'

Idolatry of Images, What ? J -^^g

'• Corrupting ••■.'.■. ■.■.■.'. ■.■.■.■.■36V and 363'.

Image-Worship of Papists : ' ' * V "t; ' -6^

*. " " same as that of Pagans ......^03.

Image of God in man, what ? ^^^6; "e^tc"

Immateriality of Soul proved fie to 66*

<• " Given in Consciousness "i "■" "y-

Immediate Imputation. Histoiy of 340 o 34 .

" • Criticized ■'^ ^ ^ tx

r^ J 44, 4:; and 152.

Immensity of God . . 760 to 764.

Immersionist's Dogma 77a to 77;

" Unchurches all others 64 to 74

Immortahty and Immateriality of Soul 7^ ' etc " 821° etc

1 \-v.^Tr^:^ ■.■.■.■.■.".■.■.■.■.■.■.45tol52and:i53!

Immutabihty of God ^^ -^ ^^ ^^2

Impeccability of Christ • ..■.•. • • • • -^ • - -^^^ ^^^ ^

Imphcit Faith of Papists ^-i^ '* ' ,28 to ^^i

Imputation. Defined and Proved -^,1 and "^"^2

In Rom. v: 12-19 %\\Zd\i

Objections to 333 an^ 335.

Mediate, rejected "■^loto W-

Not unjust cic to ;i8

Imputation of our Guilt to Christ • • 6do to 642

^ " of Christ's Righteousness. Basis of. . . . . ... . . • -. 040 to 042.

u ^ " Arguments and Objections 642 to 043.

Inability Defined. " Moral and Natural." .■■■.■.'.■. *4V2 and 414!

Incest. Sin of J27 to 128.

Inducement not Motive qi to 93.

Inductive Demonstration what ? ^ ^g^_

Indulgences, theory of. ['.'.'..'.'.'. ."792' to 799'.

Infants. How related to Church '^ '^^_

Infants addressed as members '77'7'to 799'.

Infant-Baptism...... ••••••• '.! .".'.'."781 to 785.

" Membership. Proved ' ' ^_

Infants, corruption of ; !.'!!.'.'".'. 173.

Infinitude of God ' * ' ' '/y'g Vo 81,

Innate Ideas y,^ to y -^g.

Intention in Sacraments ..'.'.'.' 549 to 550.

Intercession of Christ caq to <^'^o.

" Objects and Duration of !8J-to824!

Intermediate State - 1;^ to 356.

Interpretations of Decalogue ^■'^ jj'^j^

Intuitions of the Mind • '' ' ' ' g- ^^ ^55^

Invincible Grace i , e

Involuntary States. Meaning of

J.

^ ,.- ^. 620 to 630.

James' Ep. 11 : 12-26, on Justification ^ j^g_

Jehovah, the Incommunicable Name 46t;'to 466*.

Jesus, the Mediator of Old Testament .'.'"'..'.".". 470 to 472.

" Immpeccable "_ y5o_

John's Baptisms What ? YjV ^nd 1 14.

Jouffroy. Theory of Ethics ^ ^ 8_^5,

Judge. Christ the _•_•_•;_ ' V and 96.

Judgments, all valid are Intuitive ; . . 96, etc.

Judgments — moral. .'.!... 83, etc.

Judgments, primitive of Reason V. 842 to'849.

Judgment, General r-^'\'"f .'.!'.". 842 to 848.

Proofs of. Purposes of. Rule of .S44to848,

" Time of. Embraces whom .' . . .T. . . S49.

" How related to Works ? 165'to 169.

Justice of God, Primitive Proved

896

J-

Justification. Doctrine and Definition of 618, etc-

" Importance of Doctrine of 618 and 619.

Justification is as its Ground 619.

" Etymology of Word 619 and 620.

" Rome's Definition of. 620 and 621.

" It is a forensic Act 620.

" Not by Works 622 to 624, 628 to 629.

" ■ Includes Pardon and Acceptance 624.

" ( nly for Christ's Righteousness 639 and 640.

" Not a lowering of Law to our weakness 631.

', Complete in all Behevers .^ 643 to 644.

'* How related to future Sins, and Judgment-Day . .' 644 to 645.

" Does not favour moral License or Antinomian Inference. . .648 and 650.

K.

Kant's Cavil against A posteriori Argument for God's existence 11.

Kingdom of Christ the Mediator 55° to 553.

■'< " Nature, Duration and End of 550 to 553.

Knowledge of God 49; etc., 155, etc.

'? " Relative, and yet Free 158 to 159.

" " Intuitive 50.

'• " Divided into Simple and Free 154.

L.

Aarpeia of Papists 360.

Law— Natural, What 278 to 283.

" of Reproduction 324, 325. 33° and 331,

" of God 351. etc.

" " Uses of Under Gospel 353 and 354.

" " Cannot be abrogated 633 to 634.

Layiug on Apostles' Hands to convey Holy Ghost, what ? 750 to 757.

Leavened Bread in Supper 801.

Legal Repentance 653 to 654.

Lewis, Prof. Tayler. Symbolic Days 254 and 255.

Liberty, what 872 to 882.

Liberty of Conscience 873 to 880.

Limbus Patrum, denied 462.

Aoyor, the • 204 and 205.

Lord's day, Why so called 393.

" Is the Christian-Sabbath 390 to 397.

" Proved by Abrogation of Seventh Day 390.

" By Precedent at Pentecost = 391 to 392.

" At Troas. Acts xx : 7 392 and 393.

" In I Cor. xvi : i, 2 393.

" By John in Patmos 393 and 394.

Lord's Supper, Expresses Union to Christ 616 and 617.

" " Defined and Discussed 800 to 817.

" " Histoiy of Institution Soi.

" " Elements, Consecration of 801 and 802.

" " Sacramental Acts in 802 to 803.

" " Who may partake of 803 and 804.

" " Perverted by dogmas ofCorporeal Presence and sacrifice in S04.

Lutheran, Old, View of Sabbath 368 and 370,

M.

MacCosh, Dr. J. Theory of the Will 131 and 132.

Man. His First estate Holy 292, etc.

Man's Likeness to God, what ? 293 to 294.

Materialism Considered 55 to 63.

Matter and Form in Sacraments 729 to 730.

Means of Sanctification 665.

Mediate Theory of Regeneration 569 to 579.

Mediation of Angels and Saints refuted ; in Col. ii 480.

" of Christ in both Natures 473.

Mediator Defined 464^

INDEX. 897

M.

Mediator of the Covenant 464 to 484.

" Must be Man, Must be God 475."

" Only one — ,1 Tim. ii : 4, 5 481,

Mental Disease, What ? '. . 71.*

Merit, what ? No Creature has it 301 and 679.

Merit, Congruous and Condign 680 to 681.

" Hypothetical 680.

" Under Covenant of Works 683.

Michael, who ? 268.

Middle Scheme of Atonement 507 to 508.

Middleton, Dr. C. on Greek article igo to 191.

jVIill, J. Stuart. Theory of Causation 90 and 91.

Miller, Hugh. Theory of Creative Days 254 and 255.

Miracles, how differing froni nat. providence 282 and 283.

Mode of Baptism , 764 and 777.

" " In New Testament 773 and 774.

Monad, mind a 66, 67 and 7 1 .

Monads have intrinsic Continuity of Existence 279.

Moral Judgments Intuitive 1 1 1.

*• " like Logical, that some are derived 112.

are Rational,

113.

Moral Agency, how constituted 119.

Moral Distinctions Intrinsic 352 and 353.

" Moral Inability " 597.

Moral Opinions, however intellectual, are echoes of W'ill 573 and 574.

Morbid Suggestions, how used by Evil Spirits 275.

Moses' Dispensation, same as Abraham's 454 and 457.

Motive Defined 127, 128 and 592.

Motive of God may be complex 529 and 531.

" " not executed may be expressed 531 and 532.

MuUer, Dr. Julius. Theory of Sin 307 to 309,

Murder, Enormous guilt of 400.

Mystical Union, what ? 613 and 614.

N.

Names, Descriptive of God '. 145.

" of God given to Christ 189.

Natural liberty and equality of man 867 and 868.

" relation of creature to God 300.

" Selection considered 28 to 30.

" Theology a true Science 6.

" Theology inadequate for Salvation 75 to 77.

' ' Theology has uses 77 to 78.

Nature and the Supernatural 280 and 283.

Neander's Erroneous view of Sabbath 386, etc.

Necessary Truths what ? 84 and 85.

Necessitarians, Scnsuahstic and Theolog 121.

Necessity of Expiation main Doctrine revealed to first Sinners 445, etc.

" ' Defined and Argued 486, etc.

" " Not physical 487.

" " Socinian objections to 488.

" " Argued from God's perfections 490.

" " " " Sacrifices.; 491 and 511.

" " " '• Nature and End of Penalties 492.

" " "■ " Conscience 495 to 497.

" " " " Immutability of Law 497.

" " " " God's Rectoral Justice 498.

" " " " Socinian's admissions 499.

Necessity of Sacraments 744 to 746.

Nestorian view of Christ's person 467 to 468.

O.

Oaths what ? Sometimes lawful 364.

Objections to Vicarious Satisfaction 513 and 518.

" of Hume to Teleologic Argument 17 to 19

♦' to Reasonableness of Prayer 717 to 719

098 INDEX.

O.

Objections to Predestination 243 to 246.

Objective World intuitively known 86.

Obligation, moral.... 117.

Offices of Son and Spirit in Redemption prove their Divinity 199 to 201.

Old Testament a Gospel-Dispensation 457 to 462.

" " Saints glorified at Death 462.

Omnipotence of God 46, 47, 159 and 160.

" " Does not work contradictories 161.

Omnipresence of God 152.

Omniscience of God 49 and 1 55.

Optimist Theory 53 and 54.

Opiis operattim. Doctrine of 739 and 744.

Order of Repentance and Faith 655 to 658.-

Origin of Souls 317 and 321.

Original Sin, Defined 306, etc., 321 to 322 and 332, etc.

" " Not a corruption of Substance 322 and 323.

" " Objections to, from Scripture, etc 2>7)3 ^'""^l Z^-

" " The Cardinal Doctrine 350 and 351.

" " Doctrine of proved 324, etc.

Osiander, Andrew's view of Imputed Righteousness 626 and 627.

Paley's moral system 107 to 1 10.

Pantheism — rejected 22 to 26.

Pardon of Sin, not taught by Reason 75 and 76.

Pa,pists deny assurance of Grace and Salvation 701 .

Parents in Fifth Commandment 398 and 399,

Participants proper in Lord's Supper 803 to 804.

Particular Redemption, Proved 520 to 523.

" " objected to from Univ. offer 523 to 524.

" " From Texts seeming to design pardon to All. . .524 and 525.

" " Defended against these 525 and 528.

Parties, Orig. to Covenant of Redemption 434.

Pascal quoted 575.

Passive Obedience and Non-resistance 868 and 872.

Passivity of Soul in quickening 586 and 587.

Passover ^ 454 .

Patripassians 1 75 to 178.

Paul, Col. i : 24, no Mediator 482.

Peace-party in America 403 to 404.

Pelagianism 296, etc 314 to 316.

Penalty not primarily benevolent 492 and 495.

" True nature of 496 and 497.

Perfectionism Discussed 667 to 672.

Perjuiy. Sin of 364.

Permissive Decree 213 and 214.

Persecution, Claim of 873 to 880.

Perseverance of Saints, Defined and Proved 687 to 698.

" " Effects of Doctrine good 697 to 698.

Person. Defined 174 and 175.

Personal Distinctions in Trinity 202.

" Properties, Relations and Order 202 to 210.

Personality of Holy Ghost 194 to 196.

Physical Test of Prayer 720.

Pity of God for Lost. How consistent with His Sovereignty in their case.. 532. etc.

Place of the Saints' final blessedness 850 and 852.

Platonic scheme of Universe II and 12, 249, etc.

l^lymouth P.relhren. Doctrine of Sanctification 675 to 677.

" " Doctrine of Prayer 721 to 724.

" " View of Assurance 708 and 709.

Polygamy in Old Testament .410 to 412.

Popisli theory of Faith ♦ ; 142.

Popish Sacraments seven 732 to 734.

Possessions of D.Temons 273 to 274.

Powers of Bad Angels : 272 to 273.

P.

899

Prayer. Definit. and object of. 713 to 714.

" Obligatory 714 to 717.

" Reasonable. 717 to 719.

" Rule and Model of 720 to 721.

" Extent of Warrant for 721 to 724.

" Social and Secret 724 and 725.

Pre-Adventists' Doctrine stated 838 to 840.

Preceptive law vicariously kept by Christ 625 and 626.

Pre-damnation 239.

Predestination, Defined and Proved 224 to 227.

" objected to as partial, etc 243, etc.

" Is personal 225 and 226.

" Is taught, Rom. ix 226 to 227.

" Properties of. Objections to 228, etc.

" Amyraut's Scheme of 235 and 236.

" Arminian " 336.

" How to be taught 246, etc.

Pre-existence of Christ 184 to 188.

Pretention. Grounded in Foreseen Sin 238, etc., 240, etc,

Prevalence of Infant Baptism in Primitive Church 791 and 792.

Priesthood of Christ : real 485. 486 and 550.

Primitive Church had Infant Baptism 791 to 792.

Primitive Judgments 83, etc.

Private Communions 816.

Private Judgment, Right of 871 to 873.

Probation, always Temporary 305.

Procession of Holy Ghost 197 to 199.

Promise in Fifth Commandment 399 to 400.

Proof of Geologic Hypothesis Circumstantial, and inferior to eye-witness. 259 to 261.

" Illustrated by Nebular Hypothesis 262, etc.

Property and Possession Whence ? 415 to 416.

Prophetic Work of Christ, essential 475 to 477.

" " " Its nature and means 484.

Proselyte Baptism 789 to 790.

Protestant faith not Rationalistic . . . ._ 143.

Protevaiigelinm in Gen. iii : 15 447 to 448.

Providence, Definitions of 276 to 291.

" Epicurean, Rationalist, Schemes of 276, etc.

" Pantheistic, Christian Schemes 276.

" must be Special to be General 277.

" Proved, from God's Perfections, Scripture, etc 283 to 285.

" Objections to, answered 285, etc.

Providential Sustentation, What ? 278 to 283.

Psychology, Some necessary in Theolog}' 78 to 79.

Punishments, Capital lawful 401 to 402.

Punitive Justice Essential in God 166 to 169.

Purgatory. Doctrine of. History of 539 to 540.

■ ' Argued for, from Scripture 540 to 541 .

•' " from venial Sins 541 to 542.

" " for from afflictions of Justified in earth 543 to 545.

" Refuted 543 to 545.

Purgatorial Ideas in all false Creeds 538.

R.

Ransom, What ? 505.

Rationale of Trinity attempted 180.

Rationalism 138.

Real Presence 804 to 814.

" " Calvin's and Westminster views of 809 to 814.

Reason in Religion 138, etc.

Reason and Understanding One 95.

Reasonableness of Prayer 7 1 7 to 720.

Reconciliation of Genesis and Geology 253. 256. etp.

Rectitude of God — argued from analogy 50 and 51.

" " " " Conscience 5'-

Detected references

Unreviewed Scripture matches found in this section.

  1. Rom. v: 12-19

9CX) INDEX

R.

Redemption by a Substitute foreshadowed 500.

Reformed Divines : doctrine of assurance 701.

Regeneration. Pelagian and semi-pelagian 561 and 562..

" is by Almighty Grace 562 and 569.

" is by Immediate Power 569 to 579,

is not violative of Will .

59«

Religious Liberty- 873 and 880,

Repentance Discussed 651 to 660,

" Distinguished from iie-afie?.£ia 652.

" " Into Legal and Evangelical 653 to 654.

" Result of New Birth 655.

" How related to Faith 655 to 655.

" No Satisfaction for guilt 659

" Produces meet Fruits 660.

Repentance essential, but not organ of Justification 646.

Reprobation 238, etc.

Reproduction, Law of, not whole of original Sin 330 and 331,

Responsibility of Man for his beliefs 136 and 138.

Restorationism Discussed 852 to 862.

Results of Christ's Sacrifice in general 536 and 538,

Resurrection of Christ 547 to 549.

" of man, 829 to 841,

" not proved by Nat. Theology 74.

" Ancient Heathen ideas of 829.

" Jewish Beliefs touching 830.

" proved only by Scripture 831 to 834.

" bodies, what ? 832 to 836.

Date of 837 to 841.

" of Wicked 837.

Revealed Theology 144.

Revealed Will 161.

Revelation and Reason 141, etc.

Reward of Believers how given 683,

Right of Revolution 87 1 and 872.

Righteousness of Adam's nature 253 to 296.

" " " Pelagian view of 296 to 297.

'' > " " Romish " 297.

" " " Orthodox " proved 297, etc.

Romish Doctrine of Creature mediation 477, etc.

" Theory of Justification 619 to 622.

S.

Sabbath a Type ? ...388.

" To be observed with Jewish Rigor ? '. 384.

" Discussed 366 to 397.

" Two opinions of Obligations of 367 to 368.

" Papal, Lutheran, Socinian, Angelican and Arminian views of. . .368 to 374

" Calvin's views of 372 to 373

" profaned by European Protestants 373, etc

" Command moral, because original 372 to 379

•' " Not Revoked in New Test, as Matt, xil : 1-8 ; Col.

ii : 16, 17, etc 380 to 390.

" now Lord's day 390 to 397

" observance. Practical argument for 396 to 397-

Sabellianism , 176.

Sacraments in general 726 to 757

" Definition and Relation to Church 726 and 727-

" Parts of 730

" Seals as well as signs 728 and 729

" Only Two 732 to 734,

" of Old Testament 734 to 736,

" Intention of ofiiciator, in 737 to 739,

" Opus Operatnm claimed 739 to 744

'• Not necessary to Salvation 744 to 746

*' Who may administer .j 746 to 74S

" Imprint no indelible character 747

INDEX. 901

S.

Sacrifice pretended in Supper 814 to 817.

Saints will be judged 847.

Saint-Worship of Papists 359 to 360.

Sanctification 660 to 686.

" Various meanings of 661.

' ' Extent of. Progressive 662 to 663 and 674, etc.

" How related to New Birth. To Justification 662 to 663.

' ' Means of. Agent 665 to 666.

" Never perfect in this Life 667 to 672.

" Completed at Death 820 to 821.

Satan, Adam's Tempter 313 and 314.

" A person 271.

" His warfare with Christ 271 to 272.

Satisfaction for Guilt Necessary 486 to 500,

" First Doctrine revealed to Sinners 445.

" Defined. Not commercial 503 to 504 and 528.

' ' Nor yet fictitious 504 and 505.

" Objected to 513 to 518.

Scieiitia Simplex 49 and 155.

Scientia Media 156, etc. 219, 288 and 289.

Scripture Infallible 144.

Seal of Holy Ghost 692.

Second Causes what, and How co-working with First Cause ? 279, etc.

Self-contradictions not authorized by Revelation 141.

Self-defence Lawful 402 and 405.

Self-depravation described 312 to 3 !3.

Self-examination defended 708 and 709.

Selfish System of Ethics 97, etc.

Self-love and Sin not always same 104, etc.

Seminal Graces 666 to 667.

Sensations awaken first : but do not Deprave the soul 333.

Sensualistic Philosophy fatal ,80.

Simplicity of God's substance 43, 44 and 151.

Sin, what ? 306, etc.

Sin universal among men 324 and 325.

Sin always deserving of Death 427 to 429.

Sinai Covenant, not one of Works 452 to 457.

Skepticism Absolute 81 to 83.

Sleep of Soul after Death, disproved 825 to 829.

Smith, Dr. Adam, Sentimental System no.

Smith, Dr. Pye. Theory of pre-Adamite Earth 253.

Social Contract Theory rejected 862 and 866,

Socinian Conditions of Belief rejected 139 to 140.

" Theor.' of Redempdon, Refuted 505, and 507.

'• Doctrine of Pardon corrupring 497 and 498.

Son of God 189 to 190.

Souls. Origin of by Creation or Traduction 317 to 321.

Souls passive in Regeneration 586 and 587.

Sources of moral Judgments 96 to 116.

Sources of our Thinking 87, etc.

Sovereignty of Decree 216 to 220. •

Special Providence 277 to 283.

Spinoza's Pantheism , 23.

Spirit, Holy 193, etc.

Spirit known in order to knowing Matter 67.

Spiritual Creatures above Man 265, etc.

Spirituality of Man. Ethical argument 68 to 74.

Spirituality of God 42, 43 and 151.

Standard of Sanctificadon, what 686.

State and Church, How related 873 to 887.

Sublapsarian scheme of Decree 232, etc.

Subsistence Defined 1 74 and 175.

Substance " 174.

Substitution foreshadowed by Providence 500.

" Why unusual in Civil Government 501 and 502.

" and Satisfaction of Christ 510 and 511.

"902

INDEX

s.

Sufficient Grace 581 to 585.

Suggestions too frequently recurring 275.

Sunday, Why so called 395 and 396.

Supererogation, Works of 684 and 6S6.

Supper the Lord's 800 and 817.

Supralapsarian Scheme 232, etc.

Sustentation of Being, What ? 278 to 282.

T.

Table first, of Law. Table second 358 to 429.

Taste illustrates moral sentiments 117.

Teleological argument 13 to 16.

" " Not weakened by Evolution 33 to 38.

Temporary Faith 600 to 601 .

Temptations of Evil Angels through Body 274 and 275.

" Duties arising out of 275.

Ten Commandments 35S, etc.

Testament : Was the Covenant snch ? 430.

Tests of Primitive Judgments 83.

Theodicy only seen in Cross 537 to 538.

Theology Defined, Divisions 5 and 6.

"Theophanies of the Son 186 to 1S8.

Thornwell, Dr. View of Man's Orig. Righteousness 298.

Time of Christ's second advent correctly understood by Apostles 844.

'Torments of Wicked ; Nature and Duration 852 to 862.

Total Depravity 323 to 328.

Traditions of Decalogue 378 to 379.

Traditions of Church as to Lord's Day 394 lo 395.

Traducianism 317 to 321.

Transubstantiation 804 to 808.

Trinity 1 74, etc.

" Defined 174 to 175 and 177.

" Mysterious, not Impossible 179, etc.

" Rationale of, attempted in vain 180.

" Direct Scripture proof of 181.

Truth of God 171.

" Duty of Speaking and Thinking 419, etc.

Turrettin's Doctrine of Concursus 287 to 291.

" " Immediate Imputation 341 to 349.

Tyndall's Physical Prayer-Test 720.

U.

Unbelief, how ground of Preterition, in Jno. x : 26 242.

Unconditional Decree • 218 to 220.

Union to Christ, Images of 612 to 617.

" " Why called mystical 613 to 614.

" " Instrument and Essential Bond of 614 to 615.

" •' Determines our view of Supper 616 to 617.

Unity of the Decree 215 to 217.

" God - 40 to 151.

" of Human Race 293.

Universal Truths what ? 85.

Universality of Decree 215 to 217.

Universal offer of Gospel 523 and 524.

Universal Design of Christ's Death as Asserted by Some 524 to 525.

Universalism Discussed 854 to 862.

Universalism Hypothetic 235 to 236.

Unrenewed do no Good Works 678 to 679.

Usury, when lawful 416 to 417.

Utilitarian Ethics 99 to 106.

V.

Veracity, virtue of 423.

Virtues of natural men spurious ? 323 to 324.

Vitality, what ? 57.

Volition wrong, how arising in a right will ? 311 and 312.

903

W.

AVar, Defensive lawful 403 and 404.

Warfare of Messiah and Satan makes all Earthly History 271 and 272.

Warrant of prayer, how extensive 721, ect.

Watts' Dr. I. Theory of the Will 132.

Week of Creation, how interpreted 252 to 255.

Wesleyan Theory of the Fall 316 and 581.

" " Imputation 338.

" " Justification 637 to 639.

" " Witness of Holy Ghost 711.

Westminister view of Lord's Supper 811.

" " Sabbath obligation 37410375.

Will, Doctrine of 120 to 132.

" Determined by Motives 122 to 126.

" of God, distinguished into Secret and Revealed 161.

" " *' " antecedent and consequent 162.

" " not first source of Righteousness 163.

W^ill essential seat of Depravity 571.

' ' naturally hostile to God 595 and 596.

Wisdom of God 47 to 48.

Witchcraft 273.

Witness of the Spirit 710 to 712.

Words of Institution in Lord's Supper 805 to 806.

Works of God ascribed to Christ 191 to 192.

Works excluded from Justification 622 to 629.

" Essential as signs A posteriori oi the justified State 630 and 631.

" Why essential as fruits of Justification ? 647.

Worship of the " Host " ■. 807.

" God given to Christ 193.

" Saints, Romish 359 to 360.

Z. Zwinglius' views of the Supper 809.

r.i',

Keyboard shortcuts

Search or jump to a reference
⌘K
Previous / next chapter
←→
Previous / next verse
kj
Favorite selected verse
f
Cycle selected verse highlight
h
Note on selected verse
n
Copy selected verse link
y
Open word study for selected verse
w
Open book picker
g
Switch translation
t
Toggle study panel
s
Desk Guide / Word / My
123
Close panels and menus
Esc
This sheet
?