A summary of Christian doctrine

~'^W<S>t-".-tH>,<'-

!oS^^<^^:

ipil

^m

U/VIMARV

Christian Doctrine

0^*/^,

A SUMMARY

Christian Doctrine

BY
FRANCIS L. PATTON, D. D., LL.D.

PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Ipbilabelpbia

Zbc Mestmlnster ^xcee

1901

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by

THE TRUSTEES OF THE

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

INTEODUCTORY.

An opinion is one thing, a fact is another. If a man
Bays that he believes the moon is inhabited, we may very
properly say, " That is your opinion, but we differ with you."
And since the opinion in question is at present not capable
of proof, prolonged argument would not be called for.

Many entertain the idea that what are called " the doc-
trines" are only conjectures or opinions for which there is
little or no evidence, and certainly no proof.

This is a mistake.

We may assent or not to an opinion as we please ; if we
reject a fact, we only advertise our stupidity. If a man
denies that the three angles of a triangle are together equal
to two right angles, we can demonstrate the proposition.
If he says that Brutus did not kill Caesar, we can open
the books of history and convince him. In the one case
we reach mathematical certainty, in the other moral. If
in face of evidence a man persists in denying facts, he acts
unreasonably. Now, " the doctrines" are facts.

But though truth for truth's sake is the motto of the
philosopher, it is nevertheless certain that we cannot know
everything, and there 'may be considerations which make
some truths more important than others. The sick man
wishes above all things to know what medicine will help his
case. And the most important truth to every man is that
which makes known the conditions of a happy hereafter.
**The doctrines" claim a position above all other truth

5

6 SUM3IARY OF DOCTRINE.

because of their practical value. If any one chooses to call
this a utilitarian philosophy, he may. Certainly, if there
were no questions of destiny pending, there might be more
excuse for those who are jubilant over the discovery of a
fossil, but indifferent to the facts of Christianity. The doc-
trines are truths which are capable of proof, and which
stand in vital relation to the life that now is and to that
which is to come. These considerations will shape the
method to be observed in the following pages,

THE FACTORS IN EELIGION : MAN AND GOD.

Religion is the bond which unites God and man. It
supposes, therefore, two factors — man, the subject of relig-
ious feelings, and God, the object of religious worship. To
cast doubt on either of these factors would be to damage or
destroy religion. If the universal beliefs of mankind had
been allowed to pass unchallenged, it would not be necessary
to offer arguments for the existence of mind or of God.
Infidels, however, have put Christians on their defence, and
their bold denials of fundamental truth make it proper,
and perhaps necessary, that, even in so brief a statement
of doctrine as this is intended to be, something should be
said to show how we can vindicate our religious nature.

I. Man.

The most pretentious form of current philosophy denies
our existence, or rather, that element in our existence which
gives it value : the mind. Tlie student of theology has a
battle to fight at the threshold, and his first foe is the
materialist ; for if it should turn out that what we call
mind is only material force, it would be absurd to talk of

SUJ^mARY OF DOCTRINE. f

religion, since there could be no God to worship and no
"we" to bow down to him. Suppose, now, that some dis-
ciple of Maudesley should hear us arguing for the being
of God from the laws of mind, and should meet us plumply
with the question, How do you know that such a thing as
mind exists? What should we say? We might feel that
this is a question which we were not expecting — we should
certainly feel that, metaphysical though it is, it has a great
deal to do with religion, and demands an answer. Our
reflections when written out might take a form something
like the following :

1. I exist. This is taken for granted in everything I
do, say or think. There can be no knowing, feeling, will-
ing, without an "I" to know, feel and will. What is this
something which goes by the name "I," "me," "self,"
" ego" ? It is not my body, for I know I am separate from
it. It is not any part of my body ; my brain is mine, not
me. There is a necessity laid upon me of thinking that I^
exist ; for if I should think I did not exist, I should have
to exist in order to think that I did not. This brings us to
Descartes' famous utterance, " I think, therefore I am."

Now, I have certain powers or attributes which my body
does not have, which no part of my body has. I will to
lift my arm. I know that my arm could not exert an act
of will, nor is it possible for me to conceive of any material
substance exercising volition. Will power is a power which
*'I" exert; and when I see a manifestation of it which is
not due to me, I at once attribute it to another "I" or
"self" similar to me — that is to say, to another person. I
know. Knowledge is one of my prerogatives which mate-
rial substances do not possess. A stone cannot Iwnow or
feel.

To sum up : There is a something, ens, entity, s ibstance
— called " I," " me," " self" This something has attributea
which matter has not, and it has not the properties of mat-

8 « SU3IMAEY OF DOCTRINE.

ter. We are compelled to think that it is a different sub-
stance, and we call it mind. The more we attempt to real-
ize the proposition that mind is matter, the more its absurd-
ity grows upon us, and the more does the distinction
between the two assert itself as a necessity of thought. In
philosophical language we say that the distinction is a fact
of consciousness.

2. The philosophy which denies mind a place in the
universe ought to be able to support its terrible conclusions
by the presentation of evidence. But when asked on what
authority they deny the universal beliefs of mankind, these
philosophers have very little to say. To be sure, they are
able to show that there is an intimate connection between
mind and body, and they talk learnedly about nerve-cur-
rents and the grey matter of the brain. But between
matter and thought, between nerve-currents and personal-
ity, there is a breach which this philosophy does not fill.
The belief in mind is a necessity of thought — a necessity
felt none the less by those who write books to prove that
mind does not exist. The materialist has encountered two
barriers which rise mountain-like to dispute his passage
into the realm of mind : the one is the mystery of life, and
che other is the mystery of personality. The attempt to
bring a living thing out of dead matter and to make mind
a department of physiology has been a failure.

3. The hypothesis that thought is a function of brain
is beset with endless confusion, and is palpably absurd,
According to it, the rationale of conversation is this : A
movement takes place in A's brain which we call A's voli-
tion to speak ; other movements follow which we call
thoughts ; these are attended with the articulation of cer-
tain sounds ; these fall on the tympanum of B's ear, affect
the auditory nerve and cause the movements or nerve-cur-
rents called hearing ; other movements follow in B's brain,
attended by corresponding articulations, which constitute

SUM3fARY OF DOCTRINE, 9

B's reply. Talking is just telegraph-operating without the
operators.

The theory involves the following incongruous elements:
(a.) Matter thinks, feels, wills. (6.) The irresistible convic-
tion of this thinking matter is that it is not matter, but
mind, (c.) Thinking, feeling, willing, as it does, this mat-
ter is necessarily of the opinion that matter cannot think,
feel or will.

And further, we might say to him who seeks to convince
us that mind does not exist : It is folly for you to undertake
any such task ; for if your theory is true, I am not properly
the subject of argument. You might as well expect a dead
man to find comfort in his funeral sermon. Convincing me,
were you to succeed, would only mean setting in motion cer-
tain nerve-currents in a material organism. And besides, you,
in the act of arguing, are only a material organism, with a
set of material forces at work which you call your philosoph-
ical opinions. One Leyden jar might as well be supposed
to discuss chemistry with another Leyden jar as for you and
me to talk metaphysics.

And yet again : If I am convinced that you are right, I
am convinced that consciousness has played me false. But
if in regard to this fundamental conviction I am deceived,
how can I be sure of my eyes and my ears when they tell
me that you are present and that you speak ? To be con-
vinced that consciousness is a false witness seems to be im-
possible, when I remember that my belief in the existence
of my philosophical acquaintance is founded on a belief in
the veracity of consciousness. I must trust my consciousness
in order that I may be convinced that it is mendacious,
which involves an absurdity akin to that of a man trying
to take himself up in his arms.

10 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

II. God.

t) The belief ii God is universal. All men believe in the
existence of some being or beings above them to whom they
are responsible and whom it behooves them to propitiate-.
This belief is not the result of argument, for the majt)rity
of men have never faced the question why they believe in
God. The fact that this belief is so widespread is a strong
argument in favor of its truth. It would be strange if the
human race were unanimous in entertaining a falsehood
like this ; and though the atheist will say that this is not
more strange than the fact that men for ages believed
that sun,, moon and stars revolved round the earth, yet a
moment's thought will show that the cases are not parallel.
The sun seemed to them to rise and set, and the stars to
move from east to west. It was perfectly natural that they
should trust their eyes. Or if it should be said that men
have held with considerable unanimity the belief in many
superstitions regarding the supernatural, we should reply
again that, given the fact of a widespread conception re-
specting the supernatural, it is not difficult to understand
the multiplied misconceptions. But it is not easy to
explain how it happened that a universal belief in the
supernatural should have taken possession of the minds
of men if there is no supernatural. If God exists, we can
account for the crudities which are associated with the be-
lief in his existence. But on the hypothesis of material-
ism, the genesis of the idea of God is without explanation.
Atheism leaves us with a universal effect without any assign-
able cause. Our belief in God we will allow is open, however,
to honest criticism. If evidence could be brought to show
that it is without foundation or is false, we should listen to
it and give it all the consideration it deserves. On the other
hand, it is fair to require of him who undertakes to over-
throw the world's faith that he present some objection

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. H

which goes beyond an assertion of his own skepticism. The
atheist as yet has not met this requirement. If he reminds
us that advancing science is banishing polytheism, we shall
remind him,, on the other hand, that it is at the same time
establishing theism. If he tells us that the phenomena in
the material world occur in accordance with universal law
and are due to the operation of one force, we shall tell him
that he must believe in one omnipotent and omnipresent Be-
ing before these generalizations can have any significance,
that they do not conflict necessarily with our belief in God,
and that they do not add much to what we learned from the
Book which says: "In him we live and move and have
our being" (Acts xvii. 28), and which tells us that "In him
and through him and to him are all things." Kom. xi. 36.

Belief in God is universal; this is a presumption in
favor of the doctrine of God's existence, and lays the bur-
den of proof on him who undertakes to set it aside. The
atheist may be defied to show that any fact of science is
inconsonant with theism. We, however, are able to pro-
duce arguments which abundantly serve to vindicate our
faith and to condemn the atheist.

We shall notice four: (1.) That which is based on the
idea of cause. (2.) That which arises out of our moral
nature. (3.) Scripture. (4.) Congruity.

1. Cause. We are so constituted that whenever any
event occurs we are necessarily led to ask a reason for it, or
to believe that it was due to some cause. This fact in our
mental constitution is the basis of the two methods of rea-
soning which are commonly known as the cosmological and
the teleological arguments.

(a.) The cosmological argument. Every change is due
to some cause. Let us see where this statement will lead
us. We exist. We owe our existence to our parents. Our
parents owe theirs to their parents, and so on. Unless we
adopt Darwinism, we must conclude that the human race is

12 SU31MARY OF DOCTRINE.

eternal, or that the chain of which parent and child are the
links terminates in our first parents. But we raLnot believe
that the human race is eternal, for this would be like sup-
posing that one link of a chain is supported by the one
above it, and that by the one above it, and so back to infin-
ity. By a necessity of thought we must think of a first
link which is fixed and w'hich supports all the rest. So the
chain of causes must bring us to the first man, the father of
the human race, and he must be self-existent, or he must seek
for a cause of his existence. How did he come into being ?

Take other species of animal life. There is no evidence
that any species has developed by gradual transition out
of a lower species ; so that, tracing the individuals of any
species backward, we come, as in the case of man, to the
first individuals of the species. And the question occurs
again, What is the cause of their existence?

We are of necessity led to believe in the existence of a
necessary self-existing First Cause ; and unless we adopt
the theory of evolution, we soon come to a point where it
becomes necessary to look for that cause outside of matter.
But were the hypothesis of evolution accepted, it would re-
lieve us of no difficulty ; for grant that the eflTects or changes
in the material world can be traced back in a chain of finite
causations till we come to an original ether, this ether is
in motion or else it is at rest. If it is in motion, the motion
Is a change which demands a cause ; and as an infinite series
of finite causes is inconceivable, we must believe that mat-
ter is the originator of motion or is self-moved. But this
is inconceivable. Plato argued, and we see no reason to
doubt the correctness of his reasoning, that, since it is im-
possible for the mind to conceive of matter originating mf>-
tion, there must be a mind as the first cause of motion.

ih.) The teleological argument. This likewise is as old aa
Plato, though made more familiar to us by the writings of
Paley and others. If, says Paley, we were walking on th©

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE: 13

Bea-shore, and should find a watch on the sand, we should
discover on examination that it was intended to be a measurer
of time, that the parts of the watch are contrived for bring-
ing about this result ; we should never dream that the parts
were, fitted to each other and with such delicate adjustment,
as a matter of chance. . We could not resist the feeling that
the watch was the product of w^onderful skill, and the work
of a designing mind. Applying this reasoning to what we
observe in nature, we conclude that the universe is not only
an efiect which has a cause, but an effect which has an
intelligent cause. Paley's watch is none the worse for wear ;
and however much some are disposed to disparage this line
of argument, it is nevertheless true that it is impossible for
the mind to face the evidences of design in nature without
feeling that they testify to an intelligent Creator. A man
may say that it is possible that these so-called adaptations
are nothing more than a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
When he says this, however, he is not seeking truth, but
seeking an excuse for not assenting to the force of evidence.
As long as he is in this state of mind it will be of no use
to multiply the evidences of design. The man who can
see no evidence of design in the structure of his own body
is not likely to be convinced by illustrations drawn from
the latest discoveries in science.*

2. The moral argument. There are two pairs of correla-
tive expressions which we all use, and which, if we stop to
think, almost necessarily suggest the idea of God. These
expressions are — right and wrong ; ought and ought not.

Some actions we pronounce right, others we say are
wrong. Benevolence is right, envy is wrong. The same

* For illustrations of design in nature, we refer to the admirable
eummary of the teleological argument in the first volume of Dr.
Hodge's Systematic Theology, to the numerous works on natural the-
logy and to the volumes of lectures published by the Christian Evi-
dence Society of London.

14 SUMiMARY OF DOCTRINE.

thing may be called right and wrong, it is true, by different
persons, but all feel that the distinction is fundamental and
necessary. It is not because a word or action pleases us that
we call it right. Its moral quality we know is something
altogether different from the feeling of pleasure or displeas-
ure which it occasions. We are conscious, when we say of
a word or act that it is wrong, of appealing to an absolute
standard, and our judgment is simply an expression of its
want of conformity with it. A standard there must be, or
the words right and wrong would have no meaning. What
is that standard? Some tell us that there is an eternal
principle of right, but what meaning can we attach to a
principle of right as the standard of moral action? Let us,
however, believe in the existence of a perfect moral being,
whose nature constitutes the ground of right, and then we
use language intelligibly when we speak of right and wrong.

Again, morality is obligatory. We are conscious of this.
There are some things which we ought to do and some which
we ought not to do. There is a vast difference between say-
ing to a man, " It will be better for you to be honest, for hon-
esty is the best policy," and saying, " You are bound to be
honest." The difference is so great that, though the attempt
has more than once been made to show how the idea of
obligation can be developed out of the idea of expediency,
it has never succeeded. If there is no God, why do I feel
under obligation ? Who has a right to command me ? If
atheism is true, obligatory morals are impossible. Our
moral nature speaks, however, in the imperative mood. We
must believe in God, or believe that the root of our nature
is a lie.

3. Scripture. A great deal of our knowledge rests on the
testimony of others. Testimony, however, would be worth-
less if we believed that men would lie as readily as they would
speak the truth. Now, supposing that we were not led by
the constitution of our nature to believe in God, there is no

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 1-5

reason why the Bible should not be competent to give inde
pendent proof of His being. If the testimony of travelers
is enough to satisfy us as to the appearance and habits of
men in the heart of Africa whom we have never seen, the
Bible, if it is authentic history, is enough to satisfy us of the
existence of a Being who made all things, who works mira-
cles and knows the end from the beginning. Some facts,
we concede, require more evidence than others, for their sup-
port. The Bible history, however, is supported by evidence
enough to satisfy every just demand. If aoy history is veri-
table, the history of the Jews is ; but take God out of the
Jewish history, and what would remain ? Prophecy is not
explainable on atheistic principles, but the Bible contains
the record of prophecy and the record of its fulfillment.
The resurrection of Christ is certified not only by the testi-
mony of those who saw Him alive after his passion, but by
the fact that the gospel was first preached in Jerusalem,
where neither the desire nor the material was wanting for
the destruction of Christianity, if it were true that the apos-
tles appealed to a falsehood when they referred to the resur-
rection. If we cannot believe in God's existence on the
testimony of the Bible, we might as well burn our books
of history. A man cannot deny its testimony unless he
says plainly, " No amount of testimony will convince me of
the supernatural." Of course such skepticism is incurable.
4. Congruity. We know that we have the wrong key
when it does not fit all the wards of the lock. On the
other hand, it is a strong argument for the truth of a theory
that it explains all the facts in the case. The belief in a
Belf-existent personal God is in harmony with all the facts
of our mental and moral nature as well as with all the phe-
nomena of the material world. If God exists, a universal
belief in his existence is natural enough ; the irresistible im-
pulse to ask for a first cause is accounted for; our relig-
ious nature has an object ; the uniformity of natural law

16 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

finds an adequate explanation, and human history is vin-
dicated from the charge of being an immense imposture.
Atheism leaves all these matters without any explanation,
and makes not history alone, but our intellectual nature
itself, an imposture and a lie.

The line of argument which we have pursued has brought
us first to a reasoned belief in Animism, and secondly to
a reasoned belief in Theism. The atheist, however, may
say, " This mode of reasoning is not demonstration. It
mai/ be there is no God, and that my consciousness bears
false witness." Of course, if a man goes so far as to charge
his very nature with falsehood, we have nothing more to
say. Discussion would be useless. It is worth while to
note the fact that the strongest argument of the atheist
is that the theist has not demonstrated the being of God ;
and in reply it is enough to say: (1.) We did not set out
with a promise to demonstrate the being of God, but to
vindicate a universal faith. This we claim to have done
by arguments which ought to convince you and which are
enough to condemn you. (2.) Your complaint is a con-
fession ; for when you seek to justify your disbelief on the
ground that possibly there is no God, you virtually confess
that the question of God is at least immensely probable.
We have no wish to discuss the question whether the
existence of God is a demonstrable proposition. We ask
you simply to consider the peril in which you stand when
you assume the responsibility of denying the existence of a
Being whom you must one day face. (3.) Probability is the
guide of life. You admit this in other matters ; why do you
deny it in this ? If you go to sea on a raft because there is a
bare possibility that you will cross the ocean safely, you act
like an idiot. If you persist in atheism in face of all the
evidence of God's existence, you are what the Bible calls a
"fool."

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE, 17

THE EULE OF FAITH.

Our moral nature prompts us to ask many questions, and
makes us impatient until they are answered. What is the
origin of the human race ? How does it happen that sin
is universal ? What is the character of the Being to whom
we are responsible? May we trust him, or must we be in
terror? How are we to kuow^ what is right and what is
wrong, since the judgments of men conflict? Are we im-
mortal? Is it a happy hereafter which awaits us? Does
that depend on anything which we can do? If so, what
must we do ?

Whither shall we go for a satisfactory answer to these
inquiries? We cannot rest until we find some standard of
truth which we can regard as infallible. Where are we to
find it? In your reason, says one. In the Church, says
another. In the Bible, says a third. The decisions we
reach respecting our rule of faith will determine whether
we shall be Rationalists, Romanists or Protestants. Let ua
consider these answers in the order mentioned.

I. Reason.

There are two ways of investing reason with infallibility.
A man may say that he needs no other revelation than the
light of his own intellect, in which case he makes reason
the source of knowledge; or he may say that, conceding that
the Bible contains divine revelations, he will receive nothing
which he cannot comprehend or which conflicts with his
sense of right, in which case he makes reason the criterion
of truth.

To one who denies the necessity or the possibility of a
revelation we should reply by saying :

1. If you deny that God can or will give a revelation,
2

18 SmfMARY OF DOCTRINE.

you simply make yourself a pope and proclaim your infal-
libility. Argument with you is, therefore, out of the ques-
tion.

2. The need of a revelation is seen in the conflicting
opinions which men entertain respecting fundamental ques-
tions. If twelve clocks at the same instant indicate a dif-
ferent hour, it is certain that at least eleven of them are
wrong. The conflicting verdicts of the human conscience
on matters of right and wrong prove that without a reve-
lation the race is hopelessly in the dark.

3. The need of a revelation and its possibility are ques-
tions which are set aside by the undoubted fact that God
has given a revelation, and that we have it in the Old and
New Testaments. When the steam-engine was invented,
it was argued that it never could be made a means of land-
travel. The railroad is a refutation of the reasoning.

When, however, the rationalist takes the position that
reason is the criterion by which we are to decide what is and
what is not properly a part of divine revelation, it is neces-
sary to remind him that there is a proper and an improper
exercise of reason in matters of religion. If a man were
to say that up in the moon two and two make five, we should
deny it point blank. If he said that in the moon there is
a race of men who can fly, we should say, Possibly ; the
thing is certainly not inconceivable. This illustrates the
first prerogative of reason, the right to pronounce against
a statement which contradicts a necessary belief. AVe can-
not believe a contradictory proposition ; we cannot believe
that an event occurred without some cause of its occurrence.
We cannot believe that right is wrong or that wrong is
right. Any book that asks us to believe these things asks
an impossibility, asks us to assent to unthinkable proposi-
tions, and therefore cannot be from God. Again, the Bible
comes to us as a revelation. So do other books — the Koran,
for example. Why do we accept the Bible and reject the

SUMMABJ OF DOCTRINE. 1^

rest? Bicause the Bibje gives evidence of being a divine
revelation. The mind, therefore, must be allowed to weigh
the evidence which accredits the Bible and determine
whether it is adequate. To deny this would be to deny
that there is any reason for believing one alleged revelation
rather than another. The rationalist, however, wishes the
privilege of sitting in judgment on the contents of Scrip-
ture. His position is open to obvious objections.

1. It does not follow that a doctrine is untrue because it
is incomprehensible. The Bible teaches the doctrine of the
Trinity. The rationalist denies it. It is a contradiction,
he says. But it is not a contradiction, for the human mind
cannot believe a contradiction, and the doctrine of the
trinity is a cardinal one in the Christian's creed. Incom-
prehensible it undoubtedly is, but this is no argument against
it, unless, indeed, the man who makes it is omniscient.

2. A man has no right to settle beforehand what God may
or may not do, and then condemn the Scriptures because
they do not harmonize with his view. God cannot do wrong,
we know\ But what may be wrong for us to do may not
be wrong for God to do. It may be wrong for a man to
chastise another man's child, though quite proper for him
to punish his own. We have no right to kill a man ; it
does not follow, though, that God has none. The rationalist
raises moral objections to the Bible because he makes the
mistake of applying to God the laws which were meant to
govern the relations of men.

3. We must not form our judgment of God by the light
of the Bible, and at the same time criticise the Bible by our
idea of God. If an Eastern prince should send us a pack-
age containing a letter and his photograph, it might be well
enough to take the necessary means of satisfying ourselves
that the package came from the person in question. But
that fact being ascertained, we must take the photograph as
a genuine p'cture, even though it should be very unlike

20 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

what we would have expected. Now, the Bible is a por-
trait, if we may so speak, of God. We learn from it that
God is just, and that he will take vengeance on those who
obey not the gospel of his Sou. It is our business to de-
termine whether the Bible gives evidence of being sent to
us from God ; but having satisfied ourselves of that fact, it
would be a very foolish thing to reject any part of it be-
cause it does not correspond with the notions we had formed
of God.

II. The Church.

Roman Catholics regard the Church as infallible and
her teachings as authoritative. They believe that the
Scriptures are infallible and inspired, but deny that they
are sufficient. They say that the Church is the custodian of
a body of unwritten truth communicated by Christ and his
apostles and preserved in the form of tradition. But how
are we to distinguish between true and false traditions?
Romanists apply the tests of catholicity and antiquity:
what has always been believed, and by all Christians, is
true. The peculiar doctrines of Romanism will not meet
the requirements of this canon, however, and the only way
in which they can be justified is to fall back upon the in-
fallibility of the Church. Romanists claim that the tradi-
tions are true because endorsed by an infallible Church.
Romanism therefore stands or falls with the doctrine of the
Church's infallibility. Some say that infallibility resides
in the pope as vicar of Christ, and others in the Church,
speaking through the majority of her bishops. A word or
two, first, on the general question of infallibility:

1. Proof of infallibility is, in the nature of the case,
impossible, for the appeal must be made either to Scrip-
ture or to tradition. The Scripture cannot be cited to
prove the infallibility of the Church, for a favorife point
which the Romanists make against Protestants is that

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 21

we have no infallible interpretation of the Scriptures. If
the Romanist is correct in this argument, it applies with
equal force to himself. He cannot appeal to the Scriptures
to sustain the infallibility of the Church ; and if he does, he
must assume that his Church is infalli)3le in order that he
may have an infallible interpretation of those passages of
Scriptures on which the infallibility of the Church is based.
On the other hand, he cannot appeal to tradition, for his be-
lief that a particular tradition is true depends upon the in-
fallibility of the Church which holds the tradition. Ro-
man Catholic reasoning is proverbially circular. The ap-
peal is to tradition to support infallibility, and to infallibil-
ity to certify tradition.

2. The Church of Rome is not infallible, because it con-
tradicts the Scriptures ; and the Scriptures, it concedes, are
infallible. The Bible teaches that only God can forgive
sins ; Rome says the priest can. The Bible says, Worship
God only ; Rome says, Worship the Virgin Mary too. The
Bible says there is one Mediator ; Rome says every priest
is a mediator. The Bible says that Christ offered himself
once for all ; Rome pretends to repeat the sacrifice in cele-
brating the eucharist. The Bible says we are justified by
faith ; Rome says we are justified by baptism. If the
Church of Rome is infallible and the Bible is infallible, we
have two iuflillibilities contradicting each other.

But there are special difficulties connected with the infalli
bility of the pope and the infallibility of the bishops or of
general councils. The doctrine of the pope's infallibility ia
attended with difficulties like the following :

(1.) It is not certain whether the infallibility of the pope
follows from the infallibility of the Church, oi the infalli-
bility of the Church from the infallibility of the pope.
Archbishop Manning holds the latter opinion. " The tradi-
tion of the Church is not to test the teaching of the pontiff

22 SUMMARY OF DOCTRTNE.

by the assent of the Church, but to take the doctrines of the
pontiff as the test of the doctrines of the Church." A writer
in the Catholic World takes the other view, and says : " The
infallibility of the pope is implicitly contained in and logic-
ally concluded from the infallibility of the Church in gen-
eral." * And Archbishop Manning himself turns round and
appeals to the infallibility of the Church to certify the le-
gitimacy, and therefore the infallibility, of the pope. He
saysf "that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, . . . that the
Council of Trent and the Council of the Vatican are
oecumenical — that is, legitimately celebrated and confirmed;
that Pius IX. is the successor of St. Peter by legitimate
election. These truths are not revealed, . . . yet they are
so necessary to the order of faith that the whole would be
undermined if they were not infallibly certain. But such
infallible certainty is impossible by means of human history
and human evidence alone. It is created only by the au-
thority of the Church."

(2.) Some important gaps in history must be filled before
it can be shown that the pope is infallible.

(a.) It does not appear in the New Testament that Peter
had any primacy among the apostles. Romanists base the
doctrine on Matt. xvi. 18 : " Thou art Peter, and on this rock
I will build my Church." J We know, however, that Peter
did not lay any claim to precedence, nor was any accorded
to him by the other apostles. He writes, "The elders who
are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." He did
not preside at the Council of Jerusalem. Paul, on one oc-
casion, withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed.

{b.) It cannot be shown that Peter was ever in Rome.

* Catholic World for August, 1871.
t Petri Privilegium.

X For an exposition of this verse see Lange's Commentary and
Notes.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 23

(c.) And if it could, it would not follow that he had any
successors.

(d.) And if he had successors, it would be impossible to
prove that Pope Pius IX. is the legitimate occupant of the
papal chair.

(e.) The advocates of papal infallibility are confronted
with the damaging fact that the sixth general council,
A. D. 680, anathematized Pope Honorius as a heretic.

The Gallican party in the Church of Rome deny that the
pope is infallible, but believe in the infallibility of the
Church — that is to say, they believe that the decisions of a
majority of the bishops are infallible. This position, how-
ever, is as untenable as that of the Ul tramontanes just no-
ticed.

(1.) It is assumed that the "Church,"' to whom promises
are given and on whom privileges are conferred, is a
visible organization, and is composed of those who are in
subjection to the bishop of Rome. Christ promised that
the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church.
The Church is said to be his body, the fullness of Him who
filleth all in all. Christ loved the Church, and gave him-
self for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by his blood, that he might present it to
himself a glorious Church, not having a spot or wrinkle, or
any such thing, but that it should be holy and without
blemish. It cannot be shown that these statements refer to
any visible organization, and far less that that organization
is the Church of Rome. We know, moreover, that these
statements do not refer to any visible Church; they are true
of no one organization as such. They are true, however, of
all believers as such, and no organization has a monopoly
of them.

(2.) The promises of Christ do not imply infallibility. It
is not denied that the New Testament sometimes uses the
word church to convey the idea of visible organization,

24 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

though in the passages which are most relied on by Roman
ists we know it has not that signification. Our Lord
evidently has referred to the local organization in Matt,
xviii. 15, when he speaks of church discipline and says .
" Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven." But his promises, whether referring to
visible societies of Christians or to Christians as members
of his invisible Church, never imply that those to whom
they were made were to be preserved from error.

(3.) No argument for the infallibility of the Church — i. e.,
the bishops — can be based on apostolic succession.

It is claimed that the bishops are successors of the apos-
tles, and have the gifts of the apostles. But the New Tes-
tament gives every evidence that the apostolic office was
special, and did not survive when the original twelve passed
away. There is no evidence that they had any successors,
and those who claim apostolic honors do not have the
"signs" which accredited those whom Christ ordained.
They cannot work miracles, nor are they inspired, nor have
they seen the Lord. But the exclusive claims of the
Roman Catholic and the Anglo-Catholic communions rest
upon the absurd figment of apostolic succession.

If, however, the Church is infallible because the bishops
are successors of the apostles, the infallibility of the bish-
ops should be analogous to that of the apostles. The
latter were infallible as teachers because they were in-
spired. Their infallibility was individual and not collect-
ive Romanists do not claim that each bishop is infallible,
but that a majority of fallible opinions in a general council
amounts to an infallible decision.

(4.) The Church of Rome is in a dilemma.

For if the council was infallible which anathematized
Pope Honorius, the pope cannot be above a general council,
nor can he be infallible. On the other hand, if the pope is

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 25

infallible, the council did wrong in anathematizing Hono-
rius, and must be fallible. And yet, again, if a general
council may be fallible, of what value is the decision of
the Vatican council which declared the pope to be infal-
lible?

In the light of history, therefore, the claim of infallibility
for either pope or council is ridiculous.

III. The Bible.

Protestants deny the authority of tradition, and take the
Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. Is it an in-
fallible rule? Let us mark the steps which lead to an
affirmative answer to this question.

1. The historic credibility of the Bible is a settled ques-
tion. The books of Moses were written by Moses. The
Gospels are genuine biographies, and were written by the
men whose names they bear. What is true of the Penta-
teuch and of the Gospels is true of all the other books of
the Bible. The Scriptures have been subjected to the se
verest criticism, and their authenticity has been placed be-
yond question. The trustworthiness of the Scriptures as
literary documents we therefore take as granted.

2. The Bible gives us a great deal of information respect-
ing God and his relations to men, which w^e find nowhere
else. The most cursory study of it will convince us of this.
We find in it accounts of miracles which God did, and
which show the close relation subsisting between God and
his covenant people. Then, the Bible contains accounts of
communications from God to men, and some of them are
very extended. A large part of the Old Testament coiv
Bists of prophetic utterances prefaced with the expression :
" Thus saith the Lord." And, finally, the Bible contains
doctrines which carry on their face the evidences of divine
authorship, because they meet so exactly the wants of the
human heart and are in such strong contrast with all hu-

26 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

man efforts to supply them. The doctrine of expiation by
an incarnate God may be taken as an example.

A large part of the Bible being a written account of what
God did and said, we may properly say that it contains the
word of God.

3. The whole Bible is God's message. This is another
step in advance. The Bible was not written simply be-
cause it occurred to several writers to put on record the facts
in their possession or to reduce to writing their religious
sentiments. God designed it to be an authorized message
from him to men. Several considerations point to this con-
clusion. The official standing of some of the writers — Mo-
ses, for instance — would bespeak official value for what they
wrote. And then, the Bible being the only means of
making known the way of salvation, we may presume that
it was designed to be an official communication. For, if it
was not, there was no official communication, and we are
left to believe that, although the scheme of redemption was
of sufficient importance to engage the thought of God, it is
due to accident that an account of it has been preserved.
Besides, the Bible is an organism. The several books stand
in designed relation to one body of truth, and the whole body
is animated by the same spirit.

Parts of the Bible we know were written by express com-
mand of God — the Pentateuch, the prophecies of Jeremiah,
the Apocalypse, for example. The books of Moses are fre-
quently quoted as the law of the Lord. Christ referred
to the Old Testament as authoritative. Peter says that the
things which were written aforetime were written for our
Learning. The repeated occurrence of expressions like " It
is written," " What saith the Scripture," "The Scripture
saith," shows that writers of the New Testam.ent regarded the
Old Testament as a divine message.

4. The Bible is infallible. We should expect that God
would protect his message against the errors which are in-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 27

cident to mere human authorship. We should naturally
suppose that no unauthorized books would be allowed a place
in the sacred canon. The references to the Old Testament
which we find in the New confirm this judgment. All the
parts of the Old Testament are put on the same level. No
difference of rank or value is recognized. They are all em-
braced in the same titles, and the titles indicate their sacred
character : The Scriptures, The Holy Scriptures, The Hal-
lowed AVritiugs, The Oracles of God.

The greatest deference is paid the Old Testament by the
writers of the New. Incidental circumstances in the life of
our Lord are spoken of as fulfillments of prophecy. This
cannot be accounted for on any other supposition than that
the evangelists believed in the verbal infallibility of the
Old Testament. Our Lord himself asserts the infallibility
of the Old Testament : " The Scriptures must be fulfilled."
" The Scriptures cannot be broken." "All things must be
fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and in the
Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me." Moreover, the
verbal references to the Old Testament which we find in the
writings of Paul prove that he and the Jewish people gen-
erally believed in the verbal infallibility of the Old Testa-
ment. Unless the infallibility of Scripture extended to its
words, the apostle would not have been justified in making a
single word the premise of a syllogism. He did so, how-
ever, in more instances than one, and we must conclude that
Paul reasoned falsely or that the Old Testament is verbally
infallible.

5. The Old Testament is declared to be of divine author-
ship.

Passages are cited from Scripture as the words of the
Holy Ghost. Heb. iii. 7 : " Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost
saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
hearts." Acts iv. 24 : "And when they heard that, they
lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said.

28 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and
the sea, and all that in them is ; who, by the mouth of thy ser-
vant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the peo-
ple imagine a vain thing?" Acts i. 16 : "And in those days
Peter stood up . . . and said, . . . Men and brethren, this
scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy
Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas."
2 Peter i. 20 : " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the
poripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy
came not in old time of the will of man, but holy men of
old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Tim.
iii. 15, 16 : "And that from a child thou hast known the
holy scriptures, w^hich are able to make thee wise unto salva-
tion through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God."

" The New Testament canonizes the Old, the incarnate
Word sets his seal on the written word. The incar-
nate Word is God, therefore the inspiration of the Old
Testament is authenticated by God himself."* It will not
require much evidence to convince one of the inspiration of
the New Testament who believes in that of the Old. It
may be inferred from the fact that it evidently forms part
of God's revelation and is necessary to the full exhibi-
tion of the gospel scheme. Our Lord, however, promised
the inspiration of the Spirit to guide the apostles: "The
Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye
ought to say." Luke xii. 12 "For it is not ye that speak,
but the Holy Ghost." Mark xiii. 11. And Paul says (1
Cor. ii. 13), " "Which things also we speak not in words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth." If the apostles were preserved against error in
their oral utterances, how much more may we suppose them
to have been inspired in writing what was to shape the
Church's faith in all time! We know, however, that Peter
* Wordsworth on the Canon, p. 51, Am. Ed.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 29

placed the writings of Paul on a level with the inspired
writings of the Old Testament : " Even as our beloved
brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him,
hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in
them of these things ; in which are some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unsta-
ble wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own
destruction." 2 Peter hi. 15-17.

The Bible, therefore, not only contains the word of God,
but it is the word of God.

It is infallible because it is inspired. The Holy Ghost in-
fluenced the sacred writers to such an extent that what they
said, God said. His influence, however, did not destroy
their individuality or abridge their liberty. It made them
infallible as teachers, but not perfect as Christians. Inspi-
ration is one thing, sanctificalion another.

The Bible is a human book ; it is also a divine book. It
had human authors ; it has a divine Author. Moses wrote
history; David wrote psalms; Paul wrote letters. Sup-
pose there were no inspiration guiding these writers. Moses
might still have remembered his interviews with God, and
have written them out with tolerable accuracy. He might
still have been a trustworthy historian of the Exodus,
though we could not feel sure that he had incorporated no
errors in his books. David, being a religious man, might
have written pious psalms, as religious men have since done,
but he might have put wrong sentiments in them too ; for
good as he was, he was far from perfect. Paul might have
written his doctrinal Epistles, and there would have been
good reason for believing that Paul knew what was true and
what was false. But Paul may nevertheless have had
some wrong views, and we could not tell but what these views
were expressed in his letters. The Bible might still contain
a great deal of valuable information regarding God and our
relations to him, but it would not be infallible.

30 SUM3IABY OF DOCTRINE.

But God is also the author of Scripture. God writes his-
tory. The history must tlierefore be true in every detail.
God writes psahus. The psalms must therefore express-
proper religious feelings. God writes letters. The letters
can give no unwise counsel, contain no false reasoning,
propagate no false doctrine.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is one
of practical and fundamental importance.

SIN.
The whole Bible is summed up in two words : Sin and
Salvation. It is w'ith the first of these that we have now to
deal. The subject is very important; for the conclusions we
reach regarding sin will affect our opinions in respect to the
atonement. It is also very wide. In the discussion of it
four distinct inquiries arise, each of which has been the
subject of many volumes and much debate.- These inquir-
ies concern: (1.) The nature of sin. (2.) Inability. (3.)
Original sin. (4.) Adamic relation.

I. Nature of Sin.
Is sin a misfortune, or is it a fault? Is it a disease which
ensures suffering, or is it an offence which deserves punish-
ment? Is salvation cure or pardon? Our Shorter Catechism
says: "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression
of, the law of God." This statement accords with the voice
of conscience and the w^ord of God. Violation of law is
implied in the idea if doing wrong. Sense of guilt is the
feeling that punishment is deserved. A crime may prove
a blunder, for it may cost a man his liberty; and being a
blunder, he may regret that he committed it. But this is a

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 31

very cliffereDt feeling from that which a man entertains
when he realizes that he did wrong and deserves punish-
ment. Punishment may have a very salutary effect upon
the criminal, or it may deter others from committing a sim-
ilar offence. But neither the reformatory nor the deter-
rent element of punishment exhausts the idea which the
word suggests. We feel that justice requires that the of-
fender shall suffer— that he deserves to suffer.

If we turn to the Bible, we shall find that sin is spoken
of as related to law. Man's first sin was disobedience. The
relation subsisting between God and man, even when man
was innocent, was that of ruler and ruled— of sovereign and
subject. Great injustice is done the book of Genesis when
men regard God exclusively as our Father, and forget he
IS our King. The nature of sin is clearly seen in God's
treatment of it. The pain which the child suffers when he
burns his finger is not punishment, nor is its removal par-
don. Sin is always spoken of, however, as being punished
or pardoned. The suffering which follows it is a judicial
infliction. Confession of sm presupposes this. We pray
for forgiveness, not for cure. The heathen are proven to
be under condemnation though they never had the law of
Moses ; they are a law unto themselves, and are judged on
the ground that they violated the law written on the heart.
" For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by
nature the things contained in the law, these having not
the law, are a law unto themselves. Which show the work
of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing,
or else excusing one another." Rom. ii. 14, 15.

" Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John in. 4.
Sin exposes us to punishment. The punishment of sin
is death-death temporal, death spiritual, death eternal.
Salvation must mean, therefore, deliverance from condem-
nation. It may inchide more than this ; it does, as we shall

32 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

see, but it must assure us of pardon, or it is not salvation
The word used to express the idea of exposure to punish-
ment is guilt. A religion which does not tell us how we
may be free from guilt does us no good. It may have
many excellencies, it may inculcate pure morals, but it
leaves us under condemnation.

II. Inability.

All men sin. They have all gone out of the way. There
is none righteous, no, not one. If we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. We begin
to sin when we begin to speak. As soon as children per-
form rational acts they show signs of sinful dispositions.
They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Sin IS a tyrant. Even Christians are not altogether free
from its dominion. " I delight in the law of God after the
inward man, but I see another law m my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity
to the law of sin which is in my members." Rom. vii. 22,
23.

How is the universality of sin to be explained? How is
its power to be accounted for? There are three answers:
The Pelagian, the Semi-Pelagian, and the Augustinian.

The Pelagian says that man is well, that he has full
ability to do all that is required of him, and that sin is due
to the effect that he exercises the power of a free agent and
chooses to sin.

This is contradicted by conscience, and opposed to the
Bible. We know that we ought to do what it is out of
our power to do. Paul said he could not do the things he
would. The drunkard knows he ought to be sober, but he
is the slave of appetite. Besides, it does not explain the
fact that all men do sin to say that they can sin. The Pela-
gian sees the tree of humanity bearing evil fruit, but fails
to apply the principle fi'rnished by our Lord.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 33

The Semi-Pelagian says that man is sich and needs di-
vine assistance, though he believes that he may repent of
his sins and turn to God under the influence of persuasion,
and without divine influence. And it must be confessed
that he can repent and believe if he is disposed to do so.
The difficulty is, however, that he has no disposition to re-
pent and believe, and will have none until influenced by
the Spirit of God. This is the opinion of the third class.

The Augustinian believes that man is dead, and spiritu-
ally can do nothing good. This is the doctrine of our Con-
fession: "From this original corruption, whereby we are
utterly indisposed, disabled aud made opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans-
gressions." chap, vi., § 4. Again, " Man, by his fall into a
state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any
spiritual good accompanying salvation ; so as a natural
man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in
sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself or
prepare himself thereunto." chap, ix., §3.

This doctrine we believe to be true —

(1.) Because it serves best to explain the universality of
sin and its controlling power.

(2.) Because faith aud repentance are spoken of in Scrip-
ture as the gifts of God :

"By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves : it is the gift of God." Eph. ii. 8. " For unto
you it is given in behalf of Christ not only to believe in
iiim, but also to sufl'er for his sake." Phil. i. 29. "Then
hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Acts xi. 18. " If God peradventure will give them repent-
ance to the acknowledging of the truth." 2 Tim. ii. 25.

(3.) Because the doctrine is more or less directly affirmed
in the Scriptures:

" No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent
me draw him." John vi. 44. "And you hath he quickened

34 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

who were dead m trespasses and sins." Eph. ii. 1. "The
carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the
law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. viii. 7. " The
natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God,
for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them
because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14.

It is clear therefore that we need more than pardon.
Salvation must deliver us from the guilt, and also from the
power, of sin. It must change our legal condition, and
also transform our character. The one is, as we shall see,
the work of Christ, the other that of the Spirit.

III. Original Sin.

A man may say : " I admit that I am so constituted that
I must certainly sin. But am I under condemnation on
account of the corruption of my nature, from which actual
trangression proceeds ?" Our standards answer this question
affirmatively. The Catechism calls the corruption of our
nature "original sin," and the Confession (ch. vi.) says:
" Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgres-
sion of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,
doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner," etc.

This is true — 1. Because it is difficult, if not impossible, to
account for our being responsible for actual transgression,
if we are not responsible for the corrupt nature from which
all actual transgressions do proceed. The readiest way of
explaining our responsibility for sins which our inability
rendered certain is to suppose that we are accountable for
our inability.

2. Because it is involved in our idea of character. The
fact that a bad act is the indication of a wicked heart
makes it all the more heinous in our sight. So far from a
bad disposition being an apology for malicious conduct, the
disposition itself is the object of our reprehension.

Moreover, we are conscious of and pray to be delivered

SUM3fAIlY OF DOCTRINE. 35

from evil thoughts and feelings which are not under our
control, but which have moral quality, nevertheless.

3. Because sins of omission are heinous as well as sins
of commission. We are responsible not only for doing
what we ought not to have done, but for not doing what we
ought to have done. We ought to be perfectly holy, and we
are not, and cannot be. This cannot be explained without
supposing that we are responsible for our corrupt nature.*

4. Because physical death is part of the penalty of sin,
and infants die who have not been guilty of actual trans-
gression. ** And so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned." Rom. v. 12.

5. Because the Scriptures plainly teach it : We are
by nature the children of wrath even as others. " For I
was born in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me." Ps. li. 5. " Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs
of thistles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good
fruit ; but a corruj^t tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good
tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit." Matt. vii. 16-19.t

IV. Adamic Relation.

But how do we become responsible for the corruption of
our nature? We find the solution in the fifth chapter of
the Epistle to the Romans, There it is distinctly stated that
the cause of our transgression was Adam's sin. By one
man's disobedience many were made sinners. By the
offence of one judgment came upon all men unto con-
demnation.

^ See Shedd on the sin of omission, in " Sermons to the Natural
Man."

f These verses were his [Augustine's] weapon against the shallow
Pelagian scheme, which would look at men's deeds apart from the
living root in man out of which they grew, and suppose that man's
unaided will is capable of good. — Alford,in he.

36 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

Our Catechism says : " The covenant being made with
A.dara not only for himself, but for his posterity, all
mankind descending from him by ordinary generation,
sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression."
In the explanation of this relation there is considerable dif-
ference of opinion among divines in our Church; some hold
that Adam, being a sinner, begat children in his own like-
ness— that is to say, with corrupt natures ; that, having cor-
rupt natures, they are under condemnation on that account.
Others hold that there is a oneness of relation between Adam
and his posterity, so that what he did they did, and what he
suffered they shared. This oneness is by some held to be a
realistic oneness — that is, a oneness in the sense that we were
actually in Adam when he sinned, and actually committed
the offence. By others it is held to be a federal oneness — that
is to say, that Adam was the representative of the race, and
what he did was accounted as being done by his posterity.
Spiritual death or inability is alike in the case of Adam and
his posterity the punishment of sin as well as sin itself.

The inquirer will naturally ask how it can be that the
fortunes of the race have been staked upon the conduct of
one. Our inability to answer this question does not
affect the fact that this is nevertheless the teaching of
Scripture. It is our duty to accept the truth on God's au-
thority. This, however, may be said — that, considering the
way in which the race is perpetuated, no fairer probation
can be conceived than that which the human race had in
Adam, who was created in full possession of his faculties
and in the image of God. It is a blessed thought, moreover,
that where sin abounded grace did much more abound.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 37

THE ATONEMENT.
Sin has been attended with two ruinous results. It has
exposed the race to condemnation, and it has debased its
nature. Salvation is therefore a twofold deliverance.
This is beautifully expressed in Toplady's lines :

*'Be of sin the double cure,
Cleanse me from its guilt and power."

Now, all who profess to be Christians regard Jesus as the
Saviour. What do we mean, however, when we say that
Jesus is the Saviour? What has he done to justify the
use of this name? Different answers are given to these
questions. They may all be grouped, however, under two
heads, the Socinian and the sacrificial views. These two
are the poles apart. They are so different as really to con-
stitute two different religions. According to the one view,
Christ is our Saviour because he influences us by his ex-
ample, teaching, sympathy or otherwise, to lead a better
life. Similarly, a drunkard might call a man bis saviour
by whose influence he was induced to become sober and
abstinent.

The other view regards Christ as our Saviour because he
died as a sacrifice for our sins. It considers the effect of
Christ's work to be mainly that of expiating our guilt by
his own death, and so delivering us from condemnation.

,' I. The Socinian View.

Under this head are classed all who hold that the saving
work of Christ consists in the efl^ect produced upon our
personal conduct, and who ignore or deny the fact that his
death is the ground of pardon. It includes, we regret to
say, some who believe in the supreme divinity of Christ,
though it is difficult to see how men can believe that Christ

38 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

is God, and at the same time take this low view of his
work.

1. Humanitarians say that Christ was a mere man. He
taught and practiced a pure morality. He met death in
the attempt to overthrow a false system. He bore witness
to the truth, and died a martyr. This is simple enough,
certainly ; and if true, the wonder is that Paul ever said,
"Great is the mystery of godliness." There would be no
mystery about it.

2. Others go so far as to say that Jesus, though a crea-
ture, was far above every other creature, that he existed
before he became incarnate, that he came to bear God's
message, to disclose the doctrine of immortality, to preach
a pure faith and be an example of a spotless life. His
death was didactic. It was to teach us the lesson of self-
sacrifice, and Avas that of a hero.

3. Some believe in the supreme divinity of Christ, but
still believe that his saving influence consisted in supplying
us with new motives for living a better life. He not only
became incarnate that he might be an embodiment of per-
fect manhood, but he entered into partnership with us in
the trials of life in order that he might win us by his sym-
pathy, and induce us to leave our sins and lead a holy life.
His death was a dramatic exhibition of his sympathy.

4. And there is a class of mystical thinkers who main-
tain, with those already mentioned, the subjective view of
Christ's saving work, though they hold that the improved
conduct of the Christian is not the effect of example, and
is not the result of moral suasion, but is the result of a par-
taking, in some mysterious way, of the life of Christ.

Differing though these classes do from- one another, we
can see at a glance that they all identify salvation with
personal holiness, or, rather, with reformation. The objec-
tions, therefore, which follow are to be urged against them
all.

SUiMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 89

1. The SociDian view assumes that God will pardon men
on condition of repentance and reformation. This is alto-
gether contrary to Scripture. It teaches that condemna-
tion is universal. " Judgment hath come upon all men to
condemnation," that every mouth may be stopped, and all
the world become guilty before God. This condemnation
is everlasting, for it stands in contrast with the everlast-
ing life which Christ gives ; and those who reject that shall
never see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them.
From this condemnation it is impossible for men to be de-
livered by works of the law. " Therefore, by works of the
law shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

2. This view identifies salvation with good conduct, but
makes no provision for our deliverance from the bondage
of sin.

Let it be granted that if we are holy God will forgive
us. How are we to be holy ? Men do not love holiness ;
they are, by virtue of their depravity, " made opposite to
all good." Good example and a high standard will not
influence men who are dead in sin. Nor will they be moved
by Christ's sympathy. The view under notice fails to do
justice either to the guilt or to the power of sin.

3. It does not explain the fact that salvation is so con-
stantly referred to Christ's death. If the good we derive
from Christ is his example, or his doctrine, or his sympathy,
it is singular that the sacred writers refer so constantly to
his death. We should expect them to say as little about
the cross as those do who preach the views to which we are
now alluding. On the contrary, Jesus Christ and him cru-
cified was the theme of apostolic preaching.

4. But these opinions in regard to the work of Christ are
false because they are in conflict with the passages which
have a sacrificial import. These may be more properly
alluded to, however, under the next view, to which we now

40 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

II. The Sacrificial View.

The view which we are now to consider embraces all those
who hold that the death of Christ was a sacrifice, on account
of which God pardons sin and receives us into his favor.
There is room, of course, for a difference of opinion in re-
gard to the exact relation in which the sacrifice of Christ
stands to our salvation. But with this we are not at pres-
ent concerned.

It should be remembered, however, that those who believe
in the sacrificial character of Christ's death do not hold in
less esteem than the advocates of the Socinian view his ex-
ample, teaching and sympathy. On the contrary, it is
through the benefits which flow from Christ's sacrifice that
we are able to appreciate Christ's example, to improve un-
der his teaching, or to be affected by his exhibition of sym-
pathy.

The view to which reference has just been made i& seri-
ously false. Great care should be taken not to be imposed
upon by theories which, though they retain orthodox
phraseology, are in radical opposition to the gospel. A
theory which denies that Christ is the propitiation for our
sin, and that we have redemption through his blood, is not
the gospel of Christ. The sacrificial character of Christ's
death will appear :

1. From the fact that our salvation is so constantly re-
ferred to his death. It is his death which he would have
us remember in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The
bread represents his body, " broken for us ;" the wiue his
blood, which was " shed for many for the remission of sins."
We are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son." "We
have redemption through his blood." "Christ died for the
ungodly." These passages are unmeaning if Christ saves
by moral suasion or force of good example. They are per-
fectly plain, however, if his death was an expiatory offering,

SU3IMARY OF DOCTRINE. 41

The Jews were accustomed to a sacrificial system ; and
when Jesus was spoken of as the Lamb of God who taketh
away the sin of the world, they saw the reference at once to
the sacrifice of the lamb without blemish which the law of
Moses ordained.

2. Passages abound in Scripture which teach that Christ
redeemed us. " We are redeemed by the precious blood of
Christ as of a lamb without blemish." " Christ hath re-
deemed us to God by his blood." " We are bought with a
price." Christ said that he came to give " his life a ransom
for many."

3. Christ is a priest, and a priest, moreover, " who needeth
not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for
his own sins, and then for the people's, for this he did once
when he offered up himself." " For if the blood of bulls
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the un-
clean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without spot unto God, purge your
consciences from dead Avorks to serve the living God ?" Heb.
ix. 13, 14.

4. Christ is called a Sacrifice. He is said to have given
himself "an oflfering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet
smelling savor." "Christ was once offered to bear the sins
of many." " He is the propitiation for our sins." " He was
made sin for us who knew no sin." " He bore our sins in
his own body on the tree." "The Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all."

5. If Christ was a sacrifice, the teachings of the Bible
are consistent. If he was not, they cannot be explained.
And this constitutes a very strong argument.

Those who say that Christ's death was not sacrificial are
compelled — (a.) To do violence to language by saying that
the Old Testament sacrifices were not expiatory ; or (6.) to
affirm that there is no analogy between the death of Christ

42 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

and the sacrifices of the old economy, and that the repre-
sentations of the New Testament are figurative.

As to the first position, we can only say that if the book
of Leviticus, and the sixteenth chapter particularly, does not
teach that the offerings were penal, vicarious and expiatory^
language cannot be found which will convey the idea. And
as to the second, we remark that if the language of the
New Testament is figurative, the wi iters of it were more
given to poetical expressions than any writers who have ever
lived. If the sober utterances of inspired men can be ex-
plained away on the ground that they are metaphorical,
Talleyrand was truly right in saying that language was
meant to conceal thought. Those, however, who assume that
the apostles found it necessary to employ falsifying metaphors
in order to commend ihe gospel to the Jews must assume that
God's education of that nation was a failure. It would be
strange if the effect of their being made the custodians of
the oracles of God should be to uufit them for receiving the
gospel except through the channel of falsehood.

The view which regards the death of Christ as a sac-
rifice is much simpler and more natural. It explains
how his death is spoken of as the ground of salvation. It
shows that the Jewish ritual was a type of Christ, and so
preserves the unity of the tw^o Testaments. It leads us, too,
to see how God prepared for the advent of Christ by fa-
miliarizing the Jews with the language of the altar, so that
it was no strange thing for them to learn that we have re-
ceived " redemption through his blood."

The Bible represents Christ as executing the offices of
prophet, priest and king. Our Shorter Catechism, in the
answer to Question 25, says ; " Christ executeth the office
of a priest in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to
satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in mak-
ing continual intercession for us."

The relation of the sacrifice of Christ to the pardon of

.SU3mARY OF DOCTRINE. 43

our sins aud our acceptance with God would be more prop-
erly considered under the head of Justification. Meanwhile,
notice that three things are to be said of the death of
Christ :

1. It was penal.

It was not the result of unavoidable circumstances, for
Jesus said, I lay down my life ; no man taketh it from me.
Nor was it didactic, merely, intended as a manifestation of
sympathy or an illustration of heroism. It was judicial.
He was delivered for our offences. He was made a curse
for us.

2. It was vicarious.

He knew no sin ; and if he stood in legal relations and en-
dured penalty, it must have been for others. He bore our
sins in his own body on the tree. He died, the just for the
unjust. He gave his life a ransom for many (in place of
many).

3. It was expiatory.

The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

Who is Jesus ? We know what he did. He gave his life
as our ransom. He died to expiate our guilt. He is our
Saviour. Our Lord once asked his disciples, What think ye
of Christ ? and the same question has fallen upon the ear
of humanity ever since. Three leading replies have been
given. Humanitarians say that Christ is a man, and nothing
more. Arians say that Christ, though a creature, was more
than man. The Nicene or orthodox view, is that Christ is
both God and man. Let us notice these replies in their
order.

44 SU3IMARY OF DOCTRINE.

I. The Humanitarians.

Two classes are embraced under this head: (a) those
who deny that there is anything supernatural in Christ's
life, and who say that he was born, lived and died as other
men ; (6) those who believe that Christ was only a man,
but who believed also in his supernatural birth, his divine
commission and his resurrection from the dead.

Humanitarians affirm a very important truth when they
say that Christ was a man. It may be well, therefore, to
emphasize this fact, which we hold in common with them,
before we consider the point of difference which separates
us from them.

Jesus Christ was a man. He is spoken of eighty-two times
in the New Testament as the Son of man. He is called the
man Christ Jesus. He had a " true body." It was not a
phantasm or shadow, as the Docetse thought. Our Lord was
born of a woman. His body grew and increased in strength.
During the temptation he hungered. On the cross he cried,
" I thirst." He was wearied. He slept once at night in a
boat, and rested once at noon by a well. He had a true
body after his resurrecction. The doubting disciple had
proof of this. He went up to heaven with a real, though a
glorified, body.

He also had " a reasonable soul." This has been denied.
The ApoUinarians believed in what is called the tripartite
nature of man, and held that, while Christ had a human
body and the animal soul, the spirit was wanting, and
that its place was supplied by the Logos. In a modified
form this view is maintained by some at the present day.
It is false, however ; our Lord's life was as .completely hu-
man as it was completely divine. He suffered ; he rejoiced
in spirit ; he loved ; he wept ; he formed friendships ; he
used the language of indignation ; he was tempted ; he
was made under the law; his soul was exceeding sorrow-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 4t

fill even unto death. If Christ had no human soul, these
references would have no meaning, A human body is not
a man. An angel in human form is not a man. God in
the garment of flesh and blood could not be called a man.
If Christ had no soul, he was not human, and was not our
brother.

The full humanity of Jesus is a truth of vital importance.
All that is precious in Christian experience is involved in
it. Christ must be a man —

1. That he might be our example. He has left us an ex-
ample that we should follow in his steps.

2. That he might sympathize with us. Having suffered,
being tempted, he is able also to succor them who are
tempted.

3. That he might take our place in law. He was made
under the law that he might redeem them who are under
the law.

4. That he might be our High Priest. " For every high
priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things
pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices
for sin."

5. That he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest
in things pertaining to God. " Being tempted in all points,
like as we are, yet without sin."

And yet the humanity of Christ is of little worth if
Christ is only a man. Humanitarians lavish eulogies on
Jesus, but they are only laying garlands on the grave of the
dead. We worship a living Christ. It is because he is more
than man — that Christianity is not a system of philosophy
on the one hand, or a system of hero-worship on the other.

We may appeal to Christ's character to prove that he was
not an ordinary man — that he was, to say the least, divinely
inspired. Some find in it proof of his divinity, but this is
to make it responsible for conclusions which are not
legitimately deducible from it. We are not shut up to the

46 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

belief in Christ's divinity because his character is, as Dr.
Schaff says, " the greatest moral miracle in history." *

The character of Christ is peerless. The words of Pilate
are the verdict of the ages : I find no fault in him. But
perfect manhood is no evidence of Deity. When we are
asked to account for this solitary instance of perfection, we
are driven to the conclusion that Christ stood in intimate
relation with God. As Nicodemus would have said : no
man could have lived as he lived except God were with
him. And yet Christ may have had a supernatural birth,
have lived a perfect life and have risen from the dead, and
still have been a man — a mere man, though by no means an
ordinary man. But Christ was more than man, as we shall
see.

II. The Arians.

It is difficult to understand how any one can believe the
teachings of the New Testament and suppose that Christ
was a mere man. Arians, though they believe that Christ
is a creature, reject the Humanitarian view. Their belief may
be stated in the words of Dr. Samuel Clarke, an Arian of
the last century : " With this first or supreme cause or Fa-
ther of all things, there has existed from the beginning a
second divine person who is the Word or Son." " The Father
alone," he says elsewhere, " is, absolutely speaking, the God
of the universe." Arians appeal to the numerous passages
of Scripture which teach the pre-existence of Jesus,t such
as John iii. 16 : " But he that came down from heaven." ix.
64 : " What if ye shall see the Son of man ascending up where
he was before." xvii. 4 : "And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with the glory which I had with thee before the world

* See Schafi's " Person of Christ," and Dr. Bushnell's chapter on the
character of Christ in his "Nature and the Supernatural."

t Clarke on the Trinity.

See the admirable chapter on the pre-existence of Christ in Hill'a
" Lectures on Divinity."

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 47

was." The Arian finds that the Scriptures place Christ on
a plane far above that of mere humanity, for they teach
that Christ existed long before he came in the flesh, and
that in his pre-existent state he exercised authority, wielded
power, received homage, which proves him to be invested
with a dignity which is shared by no other creature— which
takes him out of the sphere of created beings altogether, we
8hould say. But we shall come to that presently.

Arianism fails to explain the teachings of Scripture re-
specting Christ. It refutes Humanitarianism by showing
that Christ is more than man. It is in turn refuted by Hu-
manitarianism, which proves that Christ was at least a man.
Arianism is false because it destroys Christ's humanity,*
and because it denies his deity. His humanity has been
proved. His deity must now be considered.

III. The Nicene Doctrine.

The Council of Nice in 325 A. D. condemned Arianism,
and afiirmed that " the Son is begotten out of the essence
of the Father, God of God, Light of light, very God of very
God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father."
The Nicene creed expresses the faith of the Christian Church.
But before the evidence for the deity of Christ is presented,
notice that the Arian has already overcome the greatest
difficulty connected with the person of Christ in admitting
the supernatural element which enters into it. The Arian
is the ally of the orthodox in proving, in opposition to the

*The incarnation, according to Arius, was merely the assumption
by the Son of a human body, his nature supplying the place of a
Boui. Robertson's " Church History," vol. i., p. 208.

"You run counter to all the ancients in supposing the Logos to
have supplied the place of a human soul, and making the Logos as
Buch possihhr Waterland's " Vindication " (reply to Dr. Clarke).

" We believe that Jesus is one mind, soul— one being, as truly
as we are one, and equally distinct from the one God." Channing's
"Unitarian Christianity."

48 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

Humanitarian, that Christ existed ages before he was born,
and was in the bosom of the Father before the world was
made. The question now is to determine whether Jesus is
the highest of all creatures or whether he is God. There
are some passages of Scripture which, though they naturally
suggest the deity of Christ, may, we admit, be construed in
an Arian sense; and since we can quote only a few, we shall
not mention these at all. The following passages teach the
deity of Christ unequivocally :

1. Christ claimed to be equal with God. He said, "I and
my Father are one." " My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work." " That ye may know the Son of man hath power on
earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee. Arise." " Have I been
so long a time with thee, and yet hast thou not known me,
Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and
how sayest thou then. Show us the Father?"

On the supposition that Christ is less than God, these ut-
terances cannot be explained. The Jews understood him
to lay claim to divine honors, and stoned him on that account:
"We stone thee for blasphemy because thou, being a man,
makest thyself God." Christ did not tell them that they
had misunderstood him. He accepted their interpretation
of his claims. The claims of Christ are backed by his
character and his miracles. It is impossible to believe that
so pure a man as Jesus was would pretend to be what he was
not, or that God would enable him to work miracles in sup-
port of a falsehood.

2. Christ is the angel of the covenant.* When God re-
vealed himself to the patriarchs, it was usually in the form
of an angel. An angel appeared to Jacob at Bethel, to
Moses on Sinai. The angel of the Lord went before the
camp of Israel in their journeying through the wilderness.
We have abundant proof that this angel was not a created

*Seo Hill's "Lectures in Divinity" on actions ascribed to Jesus in
his pre-existent state.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 49

being ; he is invariably spoken of as God. " The angel of
the Lord apake with me," says Jacob, "saying, I am the
God of Bethel." The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses
in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush. "And when
the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto
him out of the midst of the bush." There can be no doubt
that the same person is called angel and Jehovah. " The an-
gel "or "the angel of the covenant" was understood by the
Jews to mean the person who had appeared to the patri-
archs, and who led Israel through the desert. This person
was divine, for he is called Jehovah. If it can be shown
that this person was Christ, it will prove that Christ is God.
We read in Malachi iii. 1 : ''Behold, I send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord
whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the
messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in." This
prophecy is referred in the gospel to John the Baptist.
John the Baptist is therefore the messenger of whom it is
said, " He shall prepare the way before me." But John the
Baptist prepared the way for Christ. Christ is therefore the
one referred to in Malachi, in the next clause of the verse,
as the Lord (Jehovah), the messenger (angel) of the
covenant.

3. Christ is called God in the New Testament : " In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt amongst us." John i.

"And Thomas answered and said unto him. My Lord
and my God." John xx. 28.

" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood." Acts xx. 28.

" Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever." Rom. ix. 5,
4

60 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

"Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the
flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 16.

*' This (person, Jesus Christ) is the true God and eternal
life." 1 John V. 20.

" Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus
ii. 3.*

These passages directly assert the deity of Christ. It
must be remembered, too, that he is referred to in the
Psalms and the prophets in terms which would be inapplic-
able to any creature. He is called the mighty God, the
everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. In the New Testa-
ment, he is constantly called the Lord, our Lord, the Lord of
glory. He is before all things. He is the first-born of every
creature. The world was made by him. He is the image of
the invisible God. He is to be honored even as we honor
the Father. He is the judge of men. He is the object of
worship. He is omnipresent and omniscient. He does di-
vine acts, is the subject of divine attributes, shares divine
honors, and is called God. If we are willing to accept the
Scriptures as our infallible rule of faith, the deity of Christ
must be considered as proved.

It is urged by objectors that it is impossible to compre-
hend how the Son can be God and the Father God,
and yet that there is only one God. It is a mystery, of
course. But the doctrine is not false because it is incom-
prehensible. It is not strange that the relations which the
persons of the Godhead sustain to one another baffle our
comprehension.

It is also said that Christ speaks of himself as subordinate
to the Father. He says, *' My Father js greater than I."

* Ellicott, Com. in loc, says, " It is difficult to resist the conviction
that our blessed Lord is here said to be our ftiyac Qedg, and that this
test is a direct, definite, and even studied, declaration of the divinity of
the eternal Son."

SUM.MARY OF DOCTRINE, 51

He intimates that some things are known to the Father
which are not known to the Son : " But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which are
in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Mark xiii. 32.

But we must remember that Christ had a finite human
nature as well as an infinite divine nature. Christ, though
co-equal with the Father, was officially subordinate to him
in his mediatorial work. These considerations fully ex-
plain the passages referred to without derogating from
Christ's divinity.

The deity of Christ is a practical doctrine. Between
those who believe and those who deny it the distance is
measureless. If Christ is a creature, we are idolaters who
worship him. If Christ is God, his death cannot be explained
except upon the principle that without the shedding of
blood there is no remission. Those who deny the deity
of Christ, as a rule, deny the sacrificial character of his
death. Those who believe that his death was the propitiation
for our sins are naturally led to believe that he is God. It
is well to notice how the doctrines confirm one another.
Sin calls for sacrifice, as we have already seen; but the
sacrifice of an angel could not save us. It must be a human
sacrifice. Christ is the sacrifice, and he has a human nature.
But the death of a mere man could not atone for our sins.
It must be the death of a divine person to give it value.
Christ had a divine nature.

The Scripture doctrine of the person of Christ is summed
up in these propositions :

1. He had a complete human nature — i. e., a true body
and a reasonable soul.

2. He had a true divine nature. He was God.

3. These natures exist entire and distinct, without mixture
or confusion.

4. He is one person.

Though having two natures, he has only a single persoa-

52 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

ality. He is the divine person who existed from all eter-
nity.

Our Shorter Catechism expresses this by si.yiug that
"The only redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus
Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and
so was, and continues to be, God and man, in two distinct
natures and one person for ever."

THE TRINITY.

Religion presupposes God. Belief in God is universal,
and is vindicated by valid arguments. There is need of an
authoritative standard to give us information regarding
God's nature, and to arbitrate between conflicting opinions.
That standard is the Bible. These propositions have all
been considered.

The Bible teaches —

1. That God is.

It does not offer proof of his existence. It takes it for
granted. It relates what God said and did, and what he
would have us believe and do.

2. That there is only one God.

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Deut. vi.
4. " But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things." 1 Cor. viii. 5. There is evidence in history,
and apart from Scripture, that polytheism is the corrupted
form of an original monotheistic faith. For a preservation
of monotheism, however, w'e are indebted to revelation.
Jews, Mohammedans and Christians believe in one God be-
cause they have been taught by the Bible.

3. That he is extra-mundane.

Pantheists profess to believe in God, but they identify
God with the universe. God is everything, and everything

SVMMABY OF DOCTRINE. h^

is God. The Scriptures teach that God is distinct from the
world for he made it : " Before the mountains were brought
forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,
even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Ps.
xc. 2.

4. That he is a spirit, infinite in every perfection.
"God is a spirit, and they who worship him must worship

him in spirit and in truth." John iv. 24. Our Shorter Cate-
chism gives this answer to the question, What is God? God
is a spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, wis-
dom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.*

5. That he is a person.

This is involved in the attributes first ascribed to him.
He is not a force, a tendency, a law. He is a person whom
we can address, whom we can love, who can reward or pun-
ish us. To deny the personality of God is, to all intents
and purposes, to avow Atheism. f

But this is not all. We have reached conclusions regard-
ing Christ which make it necessary to believe more than
we have yet stated regarding God.

Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ is likewise the Sou of
God. So that we have Grod the Father and God the Son
We have God the Holy Ghost also, as we shall see. For it
can be shown — (a) That the Holy Ghost is a person.
Some orthodox people, because they are very thoughtless or
very ignorant, speak of the Holy Ghost as it. The Holy
Ghost is not simply the power of God, a divine influence or
energy. He is a person, as we are clearly taught in passages
like the following : " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God."

*For remarks on the attributes of God, see the commentary on the
Confession of Faith, by Dr. A, A. Hodge.

f Matthew Arnold defines God to be a stream of tendency according
to wL ch all things fulfill the law of their being. The great mistake
of Christianity, according to him, consists in regarding God a^ a per-
son.— Literature and Doytna.

54 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

Eph. iv. 30, " The Spirit maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered." Rom. viii. 26. " The
Spirit said unto Peter, Behold, three men seek thee." Acts
X. 19. The Holy Ghost said, *' Separate me Barnabas and
Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Acts
xiii. 2.

" The Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, whom the Fa-
ther will send in my name ; he shall teach you all things."
John xiv. 26.*

(6.) That the Holy Ghost is God.

There are few who believe that the Holy Ghost is a crea-
ture. Those who deny the Trinity maintain that by the Spirit
is simply meant the operation of God or the influence
which God exerts. The deity of the Spirit seems to follow
when his personality is established. It is very clear that
he is not a creature. The unpardonable sin is blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost. Ananias was told that he had lied
to the Holy Ghost. And when Peter repeated the statement,
he said that he had lied unto God. To lie unto the Holy
Ghost, therefore, is to lie unto God.

Again, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Christians
are spoken of as temples of God, and this is explained by
the statement that the Spirit of God dwelleth in them. We
are taught to honor the Spirit as we honor the Father and
the Son, for we are baptized in his name, and the apostolic
benediction invokes the communion of the Holy Ghost as
well as the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Scriptures teach, therefore, 1. That there is only one
God. 2. That the Father is God ; that the Son is God ;
that the Holy Ghost is God.

Those who accept these facts difier in their explanation of
them, and their difference is brought out in the two leading
opinions on the Trinity : the Sabellian and the Athanasiau.
* See Pearson on the Creed, art. viii.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. hb

I. The Sabellian Doctrine.

The Scripture requires us to believe in the deity of the
Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and at the
same time preserve the doctrine of the divine unity. This
is a difficulty. The first, and perhaps the most natural,
solution of it would be what is known in Church history as
Sabellianism, or the doctrine of a modal Trinity. Those
who hold this opinion suppose that the same Being mani-
fests himself, at one time and in one relation, as Father;
at another time and in another relation, as Son ; and at
another time and in another relation, as Holy Ghost. As
Creator, God is Father ; as Redeemer, he is the Son ; as
Sanctifier, he is the Holy Ghost, just as the same man
may be known by different names at different times and
under different circumstances. As a church officer, he
may be called deacon ; as a professional man, he may be
called judge ; while a third party, associating his name
with army reminiscences, may call him general.

The doctrine of a modal Trinity, however, does not teach
the whole truth. It teaches truly that the Father is God, that
the Son is God, that the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that
there are not three Gods, but one God. But it denies that
the Father is a person distinct from the Son, the Son a per-
son distinct from the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost
is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. " The
scriptural facts are— (a) the Father says I, the Son says T,
the Spirit says I. (6) The Father says thou to the Son,
and the Son says tho.u to the Father, and in like manner
the Father and Son use the pronouns he and him in refer-
ence to the Spirit, (c) The Father loves the Son, the Son
loves the Father, the Spirit testifies of the Son."*

In other words, the Scriptures teach the doctrine of a
tri-personal God.

*Dr. Hodge, "Systematic Theology," vol. i., p. 444.

56 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

II. The Athanasian Doctrine.

The full scriptural doctrine of the Triuity is set forth in
the so-called Athanasian creed. We quote a few sentences .

"But this is the catholic faith, that we worship one God
in trinity, and trinity in unity. Neither confounding the
persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the
Father is one, of the Son another, of the Holy Spirit an-
other. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost is one, the glory equal, the majesty
equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and
such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is
uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is
infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Ghost is infinite. The
Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is
eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings, but
one eternal Being. As also there are not three uncreated
beings nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated and
one infinite Being."

It is to be noticed that the Athanasian creed does not add
anything to what the Scriptures themselves teach regarding
God. The Bible teaches — (1) That there is only one God.
(2) That the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost
God. (3) That Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three
distinct persons. These three facts constitute the Church
doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine being proved, it is
natural that we should find references to it in the Old Tes-
tament, where the word Elohim (God) appears in the plural
form ; where God says let us make man ; in the trinal form
of adoration : Holy, Holy, Holy ; and in the threefold form
of blessing. There are repeated references to it in the New
Testament, but the most remarkable are found in the bap-
tismal formula and in the apostolic benediction.

The three persons of the Trinity, though the same in
eubstauce, equal in power and glory, nevertheless sustain

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 57

such a relation to each other that the Father is first, the
Son second, the Holy Ghost third. The second person
is so related to the first as to be called the Son, but what
the relation implies we do not know. The Son has been
Son from all eternity, and did not assume the title at his
incarnation. The Holy Ghost " proceedeth " from the
Father and the Sou, but what this expression implies we
cannot say.

If the separate elements which enter into the doctrine
of the Trinity are proved to be taught in Scripture, the
only reasonable mode of objecting to the doctriue is that of
denying the authority of Scripture ; and many do stand in
this defiant attitude. But there are many who are not
willing to concede that the separate elements of the doc-
trine are taught in Scripture. In other words, they deny
that the deity of Christ is taught in the Bible. Of course,
as long as they do this, it is unnecessary for them to urge,
or even for us to consider, further objections against the
doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarians, however, are fond of
making the doctrine of the Trinity appear ridiculous. And
some who do not disbelieve the deity of Christ are per-
plexed by the difficulties which they meet in Trinitarian
theology, and make a truce with doubt by assuming that,
after all, the doctrine is not of much practical importance.
To illustrate :

1. It is said that the doctrine of the Trinity involves a
contradiction. But this is a mistake. The Church does
not teach that three persons are one person, but that one
Being exists in three persons. It is assumed always by
those who ridicule Trinitarian faith that we suppose that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three persons, in the same
sense that Peter, James and John are three individuals.
But we do not. What do w.e believe ? We believe — (1)
that there is one God ; (2) that God is tri-personal — that is
to say, that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are so distinct

58 SUiMiMARY OF DOCTRINE.

that the Father can address the Son, the Son address the
Father and speak of sending the Spirit. The Scripture
teaches these facts regarding the relation of Father, Son
and Spirit, and the word person expresses them better than
any other.

Again, it is asked how the Son can be as old as the
Father. The object of the question is to involve the doc-
trine of the Trinity in a contradiction, for of course, if
Christ is God, he is co-eternal with the Father. But we
cannot fathom the meaning of the words "Father" and
" Son " when used to express the relations of the first and
second Persons of the Trinity. We know that there is a
relation between them which these names are used to
express. Beyond that we are in the dark.

2. It is said that the doctrine is inconceivable. But this
is not true. Every statement of the Athanasian creed
is a plain proposition. It is incomprehensible, without
doubt. But that is not strange. The incomprehensibility
of the doctrine should not make us doubt its truth or ques-
tion its importance.

3. It is said that the subject is of no great practical value.
This, too, is a grave mistake. This is a fundamental doc-
trine. Sin is the violation of God's law, hence our need
of pardon. Pardon must be preceded by propitiation.
The propitiation is made by Christ, and to give it value
Christ must be divine. The divinity of Christ proves the
doctrine of the Trinity. Those who deny the Trinity deny,
as a rule, the deity of Christ, deny that Christ made an
atonement, and deny that sin is such a violation of God's
law that it incurs God's wrath and curse to all eternity.

The doctrines of Scripture are so related, that if we deny
the Trinity we part company with the gospel.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 59

JUSTIFICATION.

A MAN dies and goes to heaven, let us suppose. Now,
why ? That is a practical question, certainly. And yet the
answer to it fills a long chapter in theological discussion.
It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that religion can be
divorced from theology.

Between man the sinner and Christ the Saviour, there
must be some relation which constitutes the foundation
of Christian hope, and which furnishes material for an
answer to the question which we have just asked. All
professing Christians would agree, perhaps, in saying that
Christ saves us by securing our justification, or that we
enter heaven because we are justified. But there are differ-
ences of opinion respecting the nature, ground, means and
effect * of justification, and these differences represent dif-
ferent answers to the question just propounded, if, in fact,
they do not constitute different religions.

I. The Nature of Justification.
There are two, and only two, leading views on this sub-
ject; for justification must refer either to a change of cha-
racter or to a change of legal condition. It must be moral
or forensic. The difference between these views is apparent.
A criminal under sentence of death is pardoned. The
pardon does not alter the man's nature or reform his
character; the change of which he is the subject is simply
legal. If his pardon were called his justification, the word
justification would be used in a forensic sense. Again, a
man is imprisoned for crime, and under reformatory influ-

* These four points "may be justly said to include whatever is
essential and fundamental in the doctrine of justification." — Buchan-
an on Justification, p. 113.

60 SUMMABY OF DOCTRINE.

ences his conduct improves. If we should speak of the
change wrought on the man's character as his justifica-
tion, we shouhl be using the word in a moral sense ; there-
fore, when a man says that he believes in "justification by-
faith," it is very important to know whether he uses the
word justification in amoral or in a forensic sense. Let
us consider these senses separately.

1. Moral. — The controversy between the Protestants and
the Roman Catholics at the Reformation turned largely
on the nature of justification, the latter using the word in a
moral sense, though not to the exclusion of the forensic —
the former using it in the forensic sense alone. Justifica-
tion is defined by the Council of Trent* to be " not only
the remission of sins, but the renewal and sanctifii3ation
of the inner man." According to the Church of Rome,
therefore, justification consists in a change of moral cha-
racter produced by the removal of original sin and the in-
fusion of righteousness. But besides this moral use of the
word, in behalf of which they contended with the Protest-
ants, they recognized its forensic or judicial meaning ; and
unless this is kept in mind, we shall fall into confusion
when we study their position respecting the ground of
justification, for they very strenuously teach, in opposition
to Protestants, that we are justified by an inherent righteous-
ness. But inherent righteousness is justification, as we have
already seen ; and how can inherent righteousness be the
essence of justification and the ground of justification at
the same time ? The only solution is, that the Roman
Catholics use the word both in its moral and in its judicial

* Cone. Trid., Sess. VI., cap. 7: " Justificatio non est sola peccato-
rum, remissio sedet sanetificatio et renovatio interioris dominis per
voluntariam susceptionem gratiat et donorum unde homo ex in-
justo fit Justus, et ex iniruico fit amicus ut sit hseres secunduiu
ispem vitae aeternae, etc." — Quoted in Winer's Confessions of Chris-
tendom.

SUM3rARY OF DOCTRINE, 61

sense — the moral when they speak of the nature of justifi-
cation, and the judicial when they speak of its ground.

Those who hold the moral-influence theory of the atone-
ment use the word justification in its moral sense. They
take the element of guilt out of sin, the element of law out
of the atonement, and the element of pardon out of salva-
tion. Sin, they say, brings suffering. To get rid of suffering
we must cease to sin. Christ is our Saviour because he de-
livers us from our sins. Men need cure and not pardon.
Justification is a moral change and not a legal one. We
go to heaven because we are holy.*

This view of justification is similar to that taught by the
Roman Catholic Church, but it is more unscriptural and
unevangelical. For, false as the Romish doctrine of justi-
fication is, it proceeds upon a recognition of the doctrine of
original sin, the need of supernatural grace and the expia-
tory character of the atonement. The moral-influence theory
ignores or denies these cardinal doctrines, while, in common
with the Roman Catholics, it teaches that we go to heaven
on the ground of what we are. And yet this doctrine has
its defenders in so-called evangelical pulpits ! We should
be on our guard against it ; it is another gospel.

* So the sinner is justified, and the justification is a most vital af-
fair— " the justification of life." Tlie true account of it is that Je-
sus, coming into the world with all God's righteousness upon him,
declaring it to guilty souls in all the manifold evidences of his life
and passion, wins their faith ; and by that faith they are connected
again with the life of God, and filled and overspread with his
righteousness." — BushneWs Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 435.

"This first step, or look, God ward, this incipient but genuine
movement of the child-spirit, is justification, rectification, the right-
ing, rightening, setting right of the soul which was before wholly
wrong." — John Young's Christ the Light and Life of Men, p. 171.

"Therefore, the pardon of sin, in any other sense than the reveal-
ing and the opening to us of the path of life, is now to us as undesir-
able as, in relation to the moral government of the Father of spirits,
it is inconceivable." — McLeod Campbell on the Atonement, p. 183.

62 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

2. Forensic— The Protestant churches hold the foreDsic
view of justification, (^alvinists and Arminians agree in
affirming that justification expresses a change of legal con-
dition, and not a change of moral character. But they
differ in this way : Arminians, the later ones especially,
say that justification means pardon; Calvinists say that
it means pardon and acceptance. To illustrate : the execu-
tive pardons a criminal, but he does not treat him aa
if he had never done wrong. God, however, not only
pardons his children, but he treats them as if they had
never sinned. He counts them as if they were righteous.
Our catechism says : " Justification is an act of God's free
grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us
as righteous in his sight." It is easy to show that this is
the scriptural view of justification — that is to say, that jus-
tification is a judicial act, and that it is more than pardon.

1. A Judicial Act. — The adjective dikaios in Greek is
the epithet used to express the idea of being right in relation
to the law. The verb dikaioo, translated "justify," expresses
the idea of placing one in the position implied in the ad-
jective dikaios. Whether in a particular case it is used in
the moral sense of " making righteous " or in the forensic
sense " of pronouncing righteous," must be determined by
the context and the usus loquendi of the writer. It is
clear that it is used in the latter sense in the New Testa-
ment.

(a) For if it were used in the moral sense, it would be
possible to substitute the word "sanctify" for "justify"
without destroying the sense. This cannot be done, how-
ever, as any one who will make the experiment will find.

(6) The judicial meaning of justification is apparent
from Paul's argument in the Epistle to the Romans. His
theme is our relation to the law of God. AD have sinned,
all are under condemnation. By the deeds of the law there
is no justification. Justification is an act of God — an act

SUM3IARY OF DOCTRINE. 63

done without regard to our works — an act of grace on the
ground of the propitiation of Christ — an act of deliverance
from condemnation. See Rom. iii. 19-26.

(c) Justification does not mean a making holy, for the
Scriptures distinguish between justification and sanctifica-
tion. 1 Cor. vi. 11.

(rf) Paul speaks of David's describing the blessedness
of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without
works. Rom. iv. 6. The context shows that " imputing
righteousness without works " is the equivalent of justifica-
tion. Imputing righteousness without works does not mean
transformation of character. Neither, therefore, does justi-
fication : both are forensic forms of expression.

(e) The word "justify " is used as the opposite of " con-
demn." Rom. viii. 33, 34 : " It is God that justifieth ; who
is he that condemneth ?" To condemn is not to make sin-
ful ; to justify is not to make holy.

2. More than Pardon. — Arminians, as we have said,
regard justification as synonymous with pardon.* But in
this they err.

(a) Because the word dikaioo does not mean "to par-
don," and cannot be so translated.

(b) It is fair to suppose that if Paul had meant " par-
don " where he says "justified," he would have said that
we ixvQ pardoned by ^^\i\\, pardoned without works, and that
being pardoned we have peace with God ; but he did not.

(c) The word dikaioo means to pronounce righteous.f
Pardon is therefore included in the justification of a sinner,
since he cannot be pronounced righteous in the sight of the

* Justification is a "remission of sins," " a sentence of pardon."
— WatsorCs Institutes, Part II., chap. 23.

The plain scriptural notion of justification is pardon, the forgive-
ness of sins. — Wesley's Works, vol. i., p. 47.

f Vide Cremer, Bibllco- Theological Lexicon of New Testament
Ch-eek.

64 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

law so lojjg as he is under condemnation. He may be
pardoned, however, without being pronounced righteous.

{d) The effects of justification are such as would not
follow pardon. It is one thing to remit a penalty, and an-
other thing to receive into favor and to give entrance into
eternal life. Suppose that God should pardon a man, and
leave the acceptance of him and his title to heaven to
depend on his subsequent behavior. AVould pardon bring
peace? Could he feel that he was reconciled to God?
Could he have any assurance of salvation ? No. And if
justification is the equivalent of pardon, how does it happen
that the justified person has " peace with God," is " recon-
ciled to God," " hath eternal life," '* is persuaded that noth-
ing shall separate him from the love of God," " is accepted
in the beloved " ? The effects ascribed to justification can be
explained only on the supposition that justification effects a
pernianent, unalterable change in our legal condition, and
that it includes not only the pardon of our sins, but the
acceptance of us as righteous in the sight of God.

II. The Ground of Justification.

What is that to which God has regard when he justifies
us? Is it something within us or something without us?
Is the ground of our justification subjective or objective f
The opinions which are entertained on this subject may be
grouped under these heads.

1. Subjective. — If God pronounces men righteous, it
must be on the ground of an inherent or a vicarious right-
eousness. In the controversy between the Romanists and
the Reformers this fact was recognized, the Romanists aflSrm-
ing that we are justified on the ground of an inherent or
infused righteousness. According to their scheme, the vica-
rious sacrifice of Christ procures for us the taking away of
original sin and the infusion of righteousness. This takes
place in baptism, which is the instrumental cause. And it

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 65

is to this remission of sin and renewal of nature that they
give the name justification. When asked, however, on
what ground God justifies the sinner, the answer is : On the
ground of inherent or infused righteousness received in
baptism.

The ground of justification according to the older Ar-
miuians was faith, and faith included or was synonymous
with evangelical obedience. They believed that the atone-
ment of Christ had the effect of lowering the requirements
of the law, and that God, instead of requiring of us full
obedience to the Adamic law, was pleased to count our
faith — that is to say, evangelical obedience — in the room
of righteousness.

The Socinian doctrine of justification proceeds upon the
idea that God is a Father. It ignores the obligations of
God's law, and denies therefore the divinity of Christ's
person and the expiatory nature of his work. It reduces the
gospel to the simple statement that God forgives on the
ground of our faith and repentance.

2. Objective. — Those who hold the subjective view as
to the ground of justification agree in the opinion that when
God pardons a sinner it is the state of the sinner's mind to
which He has respect. In other words, that it is on the
ground of something in the sinner himself. The objective
view is the opposite of this. Those who hold it maintain
that we are justified on the ground of what Christ has
done, and not on the ground of what we do.

The Wesleyan Arminians belong to this class. Justifica-
tion is defined by them to be pardon ; and pardon, they are
careful to say, is on the ground of the righteousness of Christ.*
It is true that our subsequent acceptance with God and our
title to heaven is, according to them, based on our evan-
gelical obedience or obedience of faith. But the pardon of
oiir sins they strenuously affirm to be on the ground of the

* "Watson's Tj.stitnles," Part II., chap. 23
5

66 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

righteousness of Christ. The doctriue of the Reformed con-
fessions, our own among them, is that we are justified on the
ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The
Shorter Catechism says that "Justification is an act of
God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and ac-
cepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness
of Christ imputed to us." That is to say, God regards
Christ as the substitute of his people, both in his active
and in his passive obedience. His death is their death, his
righteousness their righteousness. When God pronounces
men righteous, it is not because of anything in them, but on
the ground of Christ's righteousness -svhich he imputes to
them. That this is the scriptural view is proved by the fol-
lowing considerations.

(a) To justify is to pronounce righteous. A perfect
righteousness, therefore, must be the ground of justification.
And since we have no righteousness of our own which will
meet the requirements of the law, that to which God has
regard in our justification must be a vicarious righteous-
ness.

(6) The statement that Abraham's faith was counted
imto him for righteousness does not mean that he was justi-
fied on the ground of his faith, nor does it sanction the doc-
trine that our faith or evangelical obedience is taken in lieu
of a perfect obedience as the ground of our justification.
For it is in the nature of the case absurd to say that God re-
gards us as righteous on the ground of conduct which is un-
righteous. Nor will it do to say that the demands of the
law are lowered through the work of Christ. For while the
Scriptures represent Christians as being delivered from the
law, they never represent the law itself as, the subject of any
change. We have peace with God because the demands of
the law have been met, and not because its behests have
been made easier. If the law has been lowered at all, to
what extent has it been lowered ? And if our justification

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. ^7

depends on our obedience, what is the measure of obedience
neces.^ary? and how shall we know when we have attained
it? And until we know, what is the ground of our peace?
Besides, this view, as Dr. Hodge says, "is dishonoring to the
gospel. It supposes the gospel to be less holy than the law
The law requires perfect obedience; the gospel is satisfied
with imperfect obedience."* " Do we then make void the
law through faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the law.

3 It is distinctly stated that we are justified by faith
without the works of the law, and that by the deeds of the
law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Both in
the Epistle to the Romans and in that to the Galatians
Paul argues that justification is not on the ground of any-
thing which we can do, but on the ground of what Christ

has done for us. -i • i ^

4 The doctrine of our Catechism is necessarily involved
in the vicarious character of Christ's work. If Christ died,
'' the just for the unjust, that he might reconcile us to God
if he came "to give his life a ransom for (in the place of )
many" if he was "made sin for us," if he was "made a
cur4 for us,"-in a word, if the death of Christ was penal
and vicarious, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, then it
would follow that when God justifies the ungodly he has
regard to the work which Christ has done in our room and

'^^5 But the doctrine of the Catechism is sustained by the
direct testimony of Scripture. We are "justified by his
blood " Rom. V. 9. God hath set him forth " to be a pro-
pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous-
ness for the remission of sins that are past through the for-
bearance of God, . . . that he might be just, and the jus-
tifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom. m. 25, 2b.
- Therefore, as bv the ofi^ence of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of
* "Systematic Theology," vol. ill., p. 169.

68 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Rom. V. 18, 19.

Paul, in the tenth chapter of Romans, complains of his
brethren because they seek to be justified by their own
righteousness : " For they being ignorant of God's right-
eousness, and going about to establish their own righteous-
ness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness
of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believeth." He speaks of the blessedness
of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without
works (Rom iv. 6), and in Philippians he expresses his desire
to "be found in him, not having mine own righteousness
which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of
Christ, the righteousness wliich is of God by faith."

To the question with which this chapter opens we reply
by saying that we enter heaven on the ground of the im-
puted righteousness of Christ.

" Slain in the guilty sinner's stead,
His spotless righteousness I plead,

And his availing hlood;
Thy merit. Lord, my robe shall be,
Thy merit shall atone for me.

And bring me near to God."

III. The Means of Justification.

We are justified by faith. All Cliristians will accept
this statement. Ail will not say, however, that we are
justified by faith alone, nor would all give the same answer
to the question, How does faith justify? These points must
now be noticed.

1. Justification by faith alone.

The Bible says we are justified by faith. Are we justi-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 69

fied by anything else ? Is anything in addition to faith
necessary in order to justification ?

Our catechism says that we are justified by the " righteous-
ness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone."
This is the doctrine of the Bible. Paul says that we are
justified by faith without the works of the law ; that by the
deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. By works he
does not mean the ceremonial law or works done before re-
generation. His doctrine is tliat Jew and Gentile are alike
under condemnation because they have violated the law of
God, and that, being under condemnation, they can do noth-
ing to justify themselves ; for the law requires a perfect
obedience, and this they cannot render. In excluding works
from justification he excludes everything which we can do.
He excludes faith itself so far as it is a work and lays
claim to merit. We are not justified by works: we are
justified by faith. There is no discrepancy between Paul
and James, though the latter says that Abraham was jus-
tified by works, and adds, " Ye see, then, how that by works
a man is justified, and not by faith only." Because (a)
James is showing the relation of works to faith, and is
not discussing the question of justification. Saving faith is
followed by good works ; where these are wanting faith is
dead. (6) James cannot mean that Abraham was pardoned
and accepted when he oflTered Isaac his son, for he had been
pardoned and accepted long before.*
2. Belation of faith to justification.

Men may use the same language and mean very different
things. This is illustrated in the matter before us. The
Romanist believes that we are justified by faith. But what
does he mean? He has two faiths and two justifications.
In his first justification original sin is removed and right-
eousness infused. This takes place in baptism. He believes

* See Cunningluim'js "Historical Theology," vol. ii., p. Q>%', "Bu'
chanan on Justification," pp. 239-249

70 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

that he ought to be baptized ; and that being baptized, he is
justified. In this sense he is justified by faith as a pre-
disponent to justification. This faith is only intellectual
assent, /des informis. In his second justification he receives
title to eternal life, and on the ground of his " works " —
that is to say, of his character. Prominent among these
" works " is '' faith." But the word faith as now employed
does not mean intellectual assent. It is synonymous with
love. This is fides formata*

The older Arminians believed that we are justified on ac-
count of our faith. Faith they considered as synonymous
with evangelical obedience, and was regarded by them as
imputed to us in the room of righteousness. Wesleyan
Arminians say that we are justified— meaning pardoned — on
condition of faith.

Those who hold the moral-influence theory of the atone-
ment believe that we are justified by faith ; but justification
means personal holiness, and faith justifies because it stim-
ulates to Christian activity. Faith is the secret of success.
Have faith in a cause if you wish to conquer. Faith saves,
because by it we overcome sin. The principle is true, but
the adoption of it as an explanation of the gospel is a funda-
mental error. In opposition to these views our standards
teach that " faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not
because of those other graces which do always accompany
it, or of good works that are the fruit of it ; nor as if the
grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for
justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he
receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness." —
Larfjcr Catechism, Q. 73.

* Hodge, " Systematic Theology," vol. iii., p. 165.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 71

IV. The Effect of Justification.

From what has been said respecting the nature and the
ground of justification it will be easy to infer what opinions
are entertained respecting the effect of justification. The
Roman Catholic believes that the justification which he re-
ceives in baptism places him in the condition whicjh Adam
occupied before the fall. It does not secure his continuance
in that state, however. His post-baptismal sins render him
liable to eternal death if mortal, and to the fires of purgatory
if venial. To escape eternal death and to mitigate the pun-
ishments of purgatory, it is necessary for him to make
proper satisfaction in this life. It is a doctrine of the
Church of Rome that a man may exceed the amount of
praying, fasting and almsgiving requisite as a satisfaction
for his own sins, and thus have something over which may
be used for the benefit of others. The Church of Rome
made merchandise of this excess in the iniquitous system
of indulgences, the exposure of which led to the Reforma-
tion. The Arminians believe that justification is pardon,
but that it secures no permanent change in our condition,
and gives no title to heaven. Our acceptance depends on
our persevering to the end, and our salvation will be the
reward of our obedience.*

The doctrine of the Reformed or Calvinistic churches is
that justification is a permanent change of legal condition.
The justified person is no longer subject to condemnation.
He is saved. He hath eternal life. This is one effect of
justification. And, moreover, justification is always fol-
lowed by sanctification. Hence the Reformers, when they

* "In asserting salvation by faith we mean this: (1) That pardon
rsalvation begun) is received by faith producing works. (2) That
holiness (salvation continued) is faith working by love. (3) That
heaven (salvation finished) is the reward of this faith."-Wesley's
*' Works," vol. v., p. 205.

72 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

affirmed that we are j iistified by faith aloue, were careful to
say that the faith whicli justifies was never by itself. It
was a fides sola, not a fides solitaria. Grood works are the
evidence and the effect of saving faith. This must be so;
for we know that without holiness no man shall see the
Lord ; and we know too that whom he justifies, them he
also glorifies.

KEGENERATION.

What is faith ? Belief But belief is assent when it
terminates on a proposition and trust when it terminates on
a person. I assent to the doctrine of plenary inspiration ;
I trust in Christ. The Romanists, regarding faith as assent,
were in the habit of charging the Reformers with believing
that men are saved by bare intellectual assent. The latter,
however, maintained that saving faith included trust as well
as assent ; and this is the doctrine of our standards. From
this definition of faith the necessity of both the external
and the internal call may be inferred. The external call is
necessary to faith. For says the apostle, " How shall they
believe in him of whom they have not heard ?" The gos-
pel must be preached and the offer of salvation must be
made before men can believe. But is the presentation
of the truth through the Word sufficient ? Are men will-
ing to accept Christ as their Saviour even although the
claims of the gospel are pressed upon their attention? We
have found that men are " indisposed, disabled, made oppo-
site to all good and wholly inclined to all evil." This is
their condition by nature. While they remain in this con-
dition can they exercise faith ? Can they rest on Christ
alone for salvation? Sin, we found, has produced two

SUM3fARY OF DOCTRINE. 73

great results. It has made man guilty. A scheme of sal-
vation must therefore provide for his deliverance from con-
demnation. We have seen how this was done. But sin
has likewise debased our nature ; it has caused spiritual
death. A scheme of salvation must provide also for our
change of nature. This moral change is necessary in order
that we may avail ourselves of the remedy provided for our
legal liabilities. For to be justified we must have faith.
But there is a barrier to the exercise of faith — to wit : that
we are spiritually dead. Noav, it is the work of the Spirit
to effect the moral change whereby we are persuaded and
enabled to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the
gospel. This change he accomplishes in " effectual calling,"
and the result itself is termed regeneration. We are to
consider regeneration first as to its nature and secondly as
to its mode.

I. Nature of Regeneration.
It is an instantaneous, radical and permanent change in
the moral nature, in virtue of which the subject is said to
be born again, to be a new creature, to be raised from the
dead. It is instantaneous, for it is a transition from death
to life ; it is radical for the same reason ; it is permanent,
for the life imparted in regeneration is immortal. Whom
he calls he justifies, whom he justifies he glorifies. The
change affects the whole soul. The mind is enlightened in
the knowledge of Christ, the will is renewed, and we are
persuaded and enabled to embrace Jesus Christ freely of-
fered to us in the gospel. It follows, from the nature of the
case, that the soul is passive in regeneration. A dead man
cannot be instrumental in his own resurrection. The soul
is regenerated ; it never regenerates itself. We are com-
manded to repent, but not to be regenerated. Regenera-
tion is necessary to salvation, but it is not a duty This
view of regeneration is proved —

74 SUM3fARY OF DOCTRINE.

1. From the doctrine of total depravity. If it is true,
this follows of necessity.

2. This is taught in the second chapter of Ephesians,
where spiritual life, as the antithesis of spiritual death, is at-
tributed to divine power: "But God, who is rich in mercy,
for his great love wherewith he hath loved us when we were
dead in sins, hath quickened us together v/ith Christ (by
grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together, and
made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

3. It is involved in other statements of Scripture : We
must be born again. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature." " We are his workmanship." It follows, there-
fore—

(a) That regeneration is not a change of external relation.
This was Archbishop Whately's view, and it is the view of
others in the Church of England, who understand baptismal
regeneration to mean nothing more than that in the sacra-
ment of baptism the subject becomes externally related to
the Church.

[h) It is not a change of purpose, as theologians of the
New Haven school suppose; for the "purpose" presupposes
the moral change in which regeneration consists.

(c) It is not moral reformation. Birth is different from
growth. Resurrection is different from the life which fol-
lows it. Spiritual growth follows regeneration, but regen-
eration is the word which expresses the change from death
to life.

(rf) Nor is regeneration the same as conversion. The
regenerated person turns to God — i. e., is converted. The
soul is active in conversion, passive in regeneration. Con-
version is the fruit of regeneration.

II. The Mode of Kegeneration.

The agent in regeneration is the third Person of the bless-
ed and adorable Trinity, " The wind bloweth where it list-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 75

eth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it coraeth or whither it goeth. So is every one that
is born of the Spirit." John iii. 8. " Not by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his mercy
he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Ghost." Tit. iii. 4, 5.

The doctrine is stated by the Confession of Faith in the
following terms: "All those whom God hath predestinated
unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and
accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit out
of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature,
to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ ; enlightening their
minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things
of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto
them an heart of flesh ; renewing their wills, and by his
almighty power determining them to that which is good,
and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as
they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone,
not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether
passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the
Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and
to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it." — Con-
fession of Faith, chap, x., § 1, 2.

The agency of the Spirit in regeneixition is immediate,
sovereign and efficacious.

1. Immediate. — The change wrought in regeneration is
through the direct exercise of divine power. Lutherans
dispute this proposition. They do not believe in the oper-
ation of the Spirit except through the Word. They hold
that there is virtue in the Word which, if not resisted, will
result in the conversion of those to whom it is preached.
This, however, cannot be the true state of the case, for the
objective presentation of the truth to a man spiritually
dead is surely not sufficient. Besides, th^ Scriptures dis-

76 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

tinctly say that it is not sufficient, for they affirm that
"the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned." ICor. ii. 14. The Scriptures distinguish, more-
over, between the influence of the Spirit and that of the
Word. " Who, then, is Paul, and who is Apollos, but min-
isters by whom ye have believed, even as the Lord gave to
every man ? I have planted, Apollos watered, but God
gave the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6. That the influence of
the Spirit in regeneration is by direct agency, and not
through the moral influence of the truth, is seen in passages
like the following : " For it is God that worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Phil. ii. 13.
" In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves :
if God peradventure will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth." 2 Tim. ii. 25.

2. Sovereign. — Regeneration is a sovereign act of God's
Spirit, who works when and where he pleases. It is not on
the ground of anything that a man does, or that God fore-
sees he will do, that he regenerates him. Romanists, and
those who hold high sacramentarian views, maintain that
baptism is necessary to regeneration. This dogma is both
extra-scriptural and unscriptural, however. The Bible
does not teach baptismal regeneration, but it teaches the
contrary. Baptism, we know, does not secure salvation ;
regeneration does. Whom he calls (regenerates) he justi-
fies, whom he justifies he gh)rifies. The salvation of infants
is not jeoparded by neglect of baptism. But " elect in-
fants, dying in infancy" (and we believe that all infants
dying in infancy are elect), "are regenerated and saved
by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh wlien and where
and how he pleasetli." — Confession of Faith, chap, x., § 3.

3. Efficacious. — Regeneration is the result of a direct
exercise of divine power. The soul is ])assive. There can
be no co-working in regeneration. This view is opposed bj

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 77

those who hold Semi-Pelagian views respecting sin, and who
maintain that the work of the Spirit in regeneration con-
sists in moral suasion. The best way to reply to this view
is to prove the doctrine of original sin. A dead man is not
in a position to be influenced by moral suasion. Besides, it
is strange that the Scriptures should say that we are created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, that we are born of the
Spirit, and that we are raised from the dead, if they meant
only to teach that the Spirit presents arguments and motives
for our consideration. The Arminians believe in total de-
pravity, but maintain that the Spirit of God is present
with every man, granting him sufficient grace to enable him
to attain eternal life, and that the difference between a be-
liever and an unbeliever is that one co-operates, and the
other does not co-operate, with the Spirit of God. To
which it is enough to reply that if men are dead they cannot
co-operate, and if they are alive they need yiot co-operate,
for they are already regenerated.

Regeneration is God's act ; conversion is man's. Con-
version follows regeneration, and is evidenced by faith and
repentance.

" Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace whereby we
receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is
offered to us in the gospel."

" Repentance unto life is a saving grace whereby a sin-
ner, out of a true sense of his sin and apprehension of the
mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of sin,
turn from it unto God, with full purpose of and endeavor
after new obedience." *

* "Shorter Catechism," Q, 86, 87.

SUiMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

ELECTION.

To be saved we must be justified ; to be justified we must
believe ; to believe we must be regenerated. God regener-
ates. All regenerated persons are saved. Those who die
un regenerated perish. Thus we are led to a consideration
of the doctrine of election. On this subject two contra-
dictory opinions are entertained. Calvinists affirm, Ar-
minians deny, that God for his own glory has from all
eternity elected some to everlasting life. Every man who
has an opinion on this subject must be, at least so far as
this doctrine is concerned, an Arminian or a Calvinist.*

I. Arminian View.

Arminians agree in saying that the Bible speaks of an
election of some sort. They agree in saying that it does
not teach the doctrine of a sovereign election of individuals
to eternal life. But they are not agreed in respect to what
the Bible doctrine of election is. They fall into two
classes.

1. Those who maintain that the election spoken of in
the Bible is an election to the external privileges of the
Church. God, they say, has shed gospel light on some
parts of the world and kept the remainder in darkness. He
has elected some to the enjoyment of Christian privileges,
while others are in a state of heathenism. This election
does not secure salvation, though it confers great advan-
tages on those who are the subjects of it.f But it is very

* For a full discussion of this point, see Principal Cunningham's
masterly essay on Calvinism and Arminianisra in his " Reformers
and Theology of the Reformation."

f "So, also, we may conclude no Christian is elected to eternal
salvation absolutely, but only to the knowledge of the gospel, to the

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 79

clear that the election spoken of in 'the Bible is an election
which secures salvation. Whom God predestinates he calls,
whom he calls he justifies, whom he justifies he glorifies.
It is an election of those " whom he had afore prepared
unto glory," " whom he had chosen, that they should be
holy and without blame," of those whom he had " predes-
tinated to be conformed to the image of his Son." This the-
ory of election does not explain the facts, and therefore
falls to the ground.

2. Those who maintain that God elects to everlasting
life those who, he foresees, will repent and believe in Christ.
But this view is equally unsatisfactory ; for so far from
our election proceeding on the ground of a foreseen faith,
faith itself is the gift of God. God does not elect us be-
cause he foresees that we shall repent and persevere in holi-
ness, inasmuch as the reason that we have repented is that
he " hath granted " unto us " repentance unto life ;" and the
reason that we persevere is that we are " created in Christ
Jesus unto good works." Election is not on the ground of
a foreseen faith, but on account of God's good pleasure,
" who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not
according to works, but according to his own purpose and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began." 2 Tim. i. 9.

II. Calvinistic View.

The Calvinistic doctrine assumes three forms.

1. SuPRALAPSARiAN. — According to this view, the decree
of election takes precedence of the decree of creation.
Out of the mass of creatable men God elects some aud
reprobates others for his own glory. To carry out this

privileges of the Christian Church, to the offer of God's Holy
Spirit, and to the promise of final salvation on condition of being a
faithful follower of Christ."— Whately's " Essay on Certain Difficul-
ties in the Writings of St. Paul."

80 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

decree he created maii and permitted him to fall. This
view is not commonly entertained. It presents metaphys-
ical difficulties to begin with.* It is unsupported by the
word of God, and contrary to it. It requires us to believe
that God has reprobated seme of the human race without
regard to their sins, whereas the Scriptures teach that,
while God saves some out of his mere good pleasure, those
who are passed by are punished on account of their sins.

2. SuBLAPSARiAN. — The advocates of this view main-
tain that the decree of election contemplates man as fallen.
Out of the mass of fallen humanity God has predestinated
some, they say, to eternal life. This is the doctrine of our
standards, and, we believe, of the Scriptures. " God hav-
ing, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity
elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant
of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and
misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a
Redeemer." f

3. Infralapsarian. — This is the view which w^as ad-
vocated by the French Protestant theologians at Saumur
" during the second quarter of the seventeenth century."
It contemplates man not only as created and fallen, but as
redeemed. Its advocates say that God decreed to create
man ; to permit the fall ; to provide a salvation for all men
through Jesus Christ on condition of faith and repentance ;
but, foreseeing that none would accept Christ, that he de-
creed to give faith and repentance to some. This view in-
volves a denial of the vicarious nature of the atonement,
and is incompatible with the doctrine that Christ laid down
his life for his sheep.

The advocates of these three views ^gree in affirming
that election is (1) of individuals, (2) to eternal life, (3j of
God's mere good pleasure and not on account of a foreseen

* For a discussion of them, see Turretine, loc. iv., qusest. ix.
t " Sh(5rter Catechism," Q. 2a

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 81

faith. These are the essential elements in the Calvinistic
doctrine of election. This doctrine is proved by the fol-
lowing considerations :

1. It follows from the doctrine of regeneration. This is
obvious.

2. Faith and repentance are gifts of God, but they are
necessary to salvation.

3. It is specifically affirmed in Scripture : " Whom he
did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to
the image of his Son," etc. Rom. viii. 29. " According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame," etc.
Eph. i. 4. " God hath from the beginning chosen you
unto salvation," etc. 2 Thess. xi. 13.

4. It is proved by the objection which Paul answers in
the ninth chapter of Romans. The most common objection
to this doctrine is that it destroys responsibility. This is
precisely the one which Paul anticipates : " Thou wilt say
then unto me, AVhy doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that
repliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it. Why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not
the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make
one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? What
if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power
known, endured with much long-suflTering the vessels of
wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he
had afore prepared unto glory ?"

5. It is involved in the doctrine of decrees. The Con-
fession of Faith says, chap. iii. : " God from all eternity did
by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ; yet so
as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or

6

82 SmiMARY OF DOCTRINE,

contingency of second causes taken away, but rather estab-
lished."

Election is simply part of God's eternal purpose. That
God's purpose is eternal and that it extends to every event
the Scriptures clearly teach. God notices the fall of a
sparrow. He numbers the hairs of our head. He disposes
of the lot. Every good and perfect gift comes from him.
He directs our steps. He controls the free acts of men,
giving faith, granting repentance unto life, working in us
to will and to do of his good pleasure. The wicked acts of
men are foreordained and overruled. Christ was delivered
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
Joseph's brethren were carrying out God's purpose when
they sold him : " God sent me before you to preserve you a
posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great de-
liverance." Gen. xlv. 7. He has mercy on whom he will
have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Moreover,
foreordi nation is involved in foreknowledge. It is admitted
by all, except Socinians, that God from all eternity has
foreknown whatsoever comes to pass. If God has fore-
known every event, then every event has been fixed and de-
termined from all eternity. God from all eternity foresaw
the crucifixion of Christ. The crucifixion was inevitable,
therefore, and God knew from all eternity that it would
certainly occur. What made it certain ? There is only
one answer: It formed part of God's eternal purpose
" whereby for his own glory he hath foreordained whatsoever
comes to pass."

The common objections to this doctrine are —
1. That it represents God as dealing unjustly. But this
is not the case. It would have been just for God to have
left the world to perish in its sins. This must be admit-
ted if the atonement is believed in. There is no need of
and no mercy in an atonement if the punishment of sin
would have been an injustice. But if God might justly

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. ^3

have left the whole world to perish, who shall challenge his
prerogative to have mercy on as many as he pleases ?

2. It is said to destroy free agency. This must be be-
cause it makes our actions certain ; but so does foreknow-
ledge. If certainty is incompatible with free agency, the
objection is involved against foreordination, as foreknowledge
is foreordination. Certainty and liberty are not incompat-
ible. God is free, but it is certain that he will not do wrong.
Christ was free, but it was certain that he would not sin.

3. It is said to make the use of means unnecessary.
Popularly stated : " If I am to be saved, I shall be saved
no matter what I am ; if I am to be lost, I shall be lost, do
what I may." The mistake arises out of the fact that God's
decree embraces every event, that he foreordains the means
as well as the end. If God decrees the salvation of a soul,
he decrees that he shall hear, heed and believe the gospel.
In like manner, if God decrees that there shall be an abun-
dant harvest, he decrees that the farmer shall prepare the
soil, sow the seed, and that favorable influences shall com-
bine to produce the result.

What practical influence should the doctrine of election
exert upon the children of God? It should make them
humble : " By the grace of God we are what we are." It
should make them grateful, for what have we that we
have not received? It should make them confident, for
faith is the pledge that God hath " chosen them unto sal-
vation."

" Why was I made to hear thy voice
And enter while there's room,
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come ?

" 'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly forced me in,
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin."

84 SU3nfARY OF DOCTRINE.

SANCTIFICATION.

Regeneration is related to sanctification as birth is to
growth. The soul's new life begins at regeneration. Its
development in spiritual strength and stature is its sancti-
fication. We are here using the words regeneration and
sanctification in the subjective sense to denote the state of
being regenerated and sanctified. They are also used in
the objective sense to denote the agency or process by
which we are brought into this state, though the objective
side of regeneration is expressed in our standards by the
term " effectual calling." Let us consider sanctification
first subjectively and then objectively.

I. Subjectively Considered.
Sanctification is moral transformation, and is altogether
diflferent from justification, which is only a change of legal
condition. At regeneration the Christian begins to lead a
new life — a better, but not a sinless, life. Though a new
nature has, so to speak, been grafted upon the soul, the old
nature is not dead. The fruits of sin and the fruits of the
Spirit hang side by side. Recovery from disease is not ef-
fected in a day. The patient is feeble long after all danger
is past. So with the soul's convalescence. And it has not
only been sick, but dead — dead in trespasses and sins.
Sanctification is a gradual change of character; it is a
putting ofl^ of the old man, which is "corrupt, according to
the deceitful lusts," and a putting on of " the new man,
which after God is created in righteousness, and true holi-
ness." In regeneration the child of God becomes "a new
creature," and this becomes more apparent as sanctification
goes on. He is the subject of new feelings, new pleasures,
new motives, new aims. " Old things are passed away."

SUM3fARY OF DOCTRINE. 85

His is not so new, however, that he loses his individuality
or ceases to be himself. Sanetification makes Christians
like Christ, but does not destroy the differences which dis-
tinguish one Christian from another * The agency of the
Eloly Ghost is present in sanetification as in regeneration—
with this difference, however, that the Christian co-operates
with the Spirit in sanetification. Sanetification is a duty.
We are commanded to " grow in grace." The doctrine of
justification by faith alone is not responsible for neglect of
personal piety. The Christian is commanded to be holy ;
and that he may attain holiness he is to be actively en-
gaged striving against sin. Christian life is a warfare, and
he is to put on the whole armor of God. It is a race, and
he is to lay aside every weight. The Christian is both a
sinner and a saint--a sinner, however great his attainments
in holiness, and a saint notwithstanding his sins. It is cer-
tain that while he lives he will not be free from sin ; it is
iust as certain that he will not fall away from grace. But
we are assuming the truth of doctrines which merit a more
explicit statement. Three great questions claim attention
here: An tinomianism. Perfectionism and the Perseverance

of the Saints.

1. Antinomianism.— Some have perverted the doc-
trine of justification by faith, and have held that as they
are released from the law as the ground of justification
they are under no obligation to keep it. This does not
disprove the doctrine, however. Men did the same thing
in the days of the apostles. The Epistle of James was
aimed at Antinomian error. Some have said that the
doctrine of justification by faith belittles conduct, which, as
Matthew Arnold says, is three-fourths of life. But this
does not disprove the doctrine. Paul had the same objec-

* The fig tree, formerly unfruitful, now becomes fruitful ; but the
rose never becomes the grape, the sanctified Peter never a James or
a John,— Van Oosterzee's "Christian Dogmatics," vol. ii., p. 658.

86 SU3IMAEY OF DOCTRINE.

tioD to meet: "What shall we say then? Shall we con-
tinue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid." Some
charge upon those who preach the doctrine of justification
by faith a disregard of holiness as a pre-requisite of heaven,,
and speak boastingly of themselves as the special apostles
of personal piety. The charge is a slander and the boast a
mistake.

The Christian is under the deepest obligation to obey the
law of God, and is urged by the strongest motives to strive
after holiness.

1. This follows from the nature of the law ; it is the ex-
pression of God's will — a transcript of his nature. It tells
man what he ought to do. To break that law is to sin, and
a scheme of salvation which would license sin is inconceiv-
able.

2. We are commanded to be holy, to put off the old man
and put on the new, to give diligence, to add to our faith,
virtue, etc. Our Saviour prays that his disciples may be
sanctified, and Paul prays for the Thessalonians that the
very God of peace would sanctify them wholly.

3. It is the Christian's nature to live a life of growing
holiness. He has been delivered from the power of dark-
ness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son.
He was dead m sin, he is now dead to sin. " How shall we
who are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" That a man
should find in justification by faith an apology for moral
laxity would be convincing proof that he had never been
born again.

4. It is distinctly declared that without holiness no man
shall see the Lord.

5. The Christian is influenced by the motive of gratitude.
If we are saved by the precious blood of Christ, a life of
consecration is a very obvious duty. "For we thus judge
that if one died fo; all, then were all dead, and that he
died for all that we who live should not U*uiceforth live

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 87

unto ourselves, but unto him who died for us and rose
again."

6. And he is influenced by another motive ; for while we
are not saved on account of our works, we are judged by
our works. In no sense are men saved by works. They
enter heaven only on the ground of the imputed righteous-
ness of Christ. But they are rewarded with higher or
lower degrees of blessedness according to their conduct here :
" For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ
that every one may receive the things done in the body
according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad."
1 Cor. V. 10.

2. Perfectionism. — We ought to be like Christ ; this
is the Christian's aim. "We are to be like Christ ; this is
the Christian's hope. But perfection is not attainable in
this life : " No luere man, since the fall, is able in this life
perfectly to keep the commandments of God ; but doth
daily break them in thought, word and deed."

The proof of this is found —

1. In the experience of Paul. In the seventh chapter of
Romans he says : " I delight in the law of God, after the
inward man ; but I see another law in my members warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity
to the law of sin, which is in my members." In the Epistle
to the Philippians he says : " Not as though I had already
attained, either were already perfect ; but I follow after, if
that I may apprehend that for which I also am apprehend-
ed of Christ Jesus." Paul's humility makes the claim of
perfection on the part of a Christian seem like presumption.

2. We read : " If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John i. 8.

3. Our Lord gave his disciples a model for prayer, and it
contains the petition, " Forgive us our debts as we forgive
our debtors." The perfect Christian, however, cannot offer
that prayer.

88 SUM3IARY OF DOCTRINE.

4. Christian experience is opposed to the doctrine. Does
any Christian suppose that he is as like Christ as he will
be? Is there a man living who for a moment supposes
that all his thoughts, words and actions conform to the law
of God ? The truth is that if by sin is meant " any want
of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God," and
if by the law of God is understood the law given to Adam,
there is not a perfectionist in the world. Perfectionist
theories are based on false views of sin or false views of the
law. Let it be shown that the law by which we are bound
is the moral law as it was given to Adam without abate-
ment or change, let it be shown that sin is any want of con-
formity unto as well as transgression of this law, and Per-
fectionism becomes transparently absurd.

3. Perseverance of the Saints. — The angels rejoice
over the sinner's repentance. They are not disappointed.
The sinner who once accepts Christ in a living faith never
forsakes him. Spiritual life may languish, but it never
dies.

On this point Calvinists and Arminians hold opposite
opinions. The Calvinistic position is well stated in our
Confession of Faith : " They whom God hath accepted in
his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit,
can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and
be eternally saved." This is the doctrine of the Bible.

1. It follows from the statements which teach a present
salvation. " He that believeth hath eternal life." " We
have passed from death unto life." " There is now no con-
demnation." These statements could not be made regard-
ing Christians if their ultimate salvation were uncertain.

2. We read that whom he " calls he justifies, and whom
he justifies he glorifies." Every Christian is therefore sure
of glory.

o, The Bible says that he who believes shall be saved.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 89

It also says : " Without holiness no man shall see the Lord."
This doctrine harmonizes these passages, as it teaches that
every believer will persevere in holiness.

4. The doctrine of Perseverance is necessary to account
for the strong language of confidence employed by the apos-
tle Paul : " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness ;" " I know whom I have believed," etc. ; " I
am persuaded that nothing shall separate me from the love
of God which is in Christ Jesus my Lord." Paul was not
self-righteous or self-confident. His assurance was based on
the evidence that God had chosen him to obtain salvation.

5. It follows of necessity from the doctrine of election.
God has chosen some to everlasting life. He has chosen
them to salvation through faith. Faith is the fruit of re-
generation, and regeneration is the proof of election. A
living faith is a guarantee of election. This is necessarily
so, for all who believe are saved ; but none are saved who
are not elected. Therefore all who believe are elected.
Hence those who are regenerated never die. " The gifts
and calling of God are without repentance." They are not
revoked.

6. The Scriptures affirm the doctrine : " I will give unto
them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall
any man pluck them out of my hand." John x. 28. " He
who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until
the day of Jesus Christ." Phil. i. 6.

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is very
precious and very comforting to the child of God, but it
does not encourage indolence or pride. Along with this
doctrine comes the exhortation to " give diligence to make
your calling and election sure," and the caution, " Let him
that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Nor is it
by any inherent strength that he resists temptation and
perseveres in a holy life. He is kept by the power of
God through faitl unto salvation.

90 SUM3IARY OF DOCTRINE.

II. Objectively Considered.
Our catechism says that sanctification is a work of God'a
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 to live unto righteousness.

1. It is eifected by divine agency. This is the uniform
testimony of Scripture. The Father sanctifies, the Son
sanctifies, the Spirit sanctifies. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Heb. xiii.
20, 21 ; Tit. ii. 14 ; Eph. v. 25. But it is especially attributed
to the third person of the Trinity. In the work of redemp-
tion each jDcrson of the Trinity is especially concerned.
The Father loved us, and sent his Son ; the Son loved us,
and died to expiate our guilt; the Spirit loved us, and
made his abode in us, taking of the things that are Christ's
and showing them to us. To his gracious influence the
Christian owes not only the new birth, but grovvth in grace.
Our growth in grace is a very diflTerent thing from moral
reformation. It is not by culture, development or building
up of manhood that souls grow in grace. The preaching
which fails to recognize the agency of the Holy Ghost is
not the preaching of the gospel, however fully and eloquently
it may urge upon men a life and conversation becoming the
gospel.

2. It is a work.

It is to the continued presence of God's Spirit that
Christians are indebted for their advances in holiness. We
are in Christ, and being in him derive spiritual sustenance :
"As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide
in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me." And
being uuited to Christ the Spirit abides with us, and our
bodies are made the temples of the living God. The Holy
Ghost does not remove all trace of sin when lie regenerates
us, as Roman Catliolics teach. Hence regeneration is only
the beginning of a process which ends in complete sanctifies-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 91

tion. Nor does he implant a germ of holiness and leave it to
fight its way against opposing influences. It is by no in-
herent vitality that the soul perseveres in a holy life. We
need the sanctifying and reviving influences of the Spirit of
God. In times of spiritual declension we pray, " O Lord,
revive thy work." At all times we pray, "Lord, increase
our faith."

3. The Spirit works through means. Our Saviour prayed,
" Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth."
Hence sanctification is a duty, and we are responsible for
the use we make of the means of grace. The outward and
ordinary means are the word, sacraments and prayer.

THE MEANS OF GRACE.

When our Lord had raised the maiden from the dead,
*' he commanded that something be given her to eat." This
illustrates the difference between regeneration and sanctifi-
cation. Spiritual food will not impart life to a dead soul,
though it will nourish and strengthen one already quick-
ened. New life is due to the direct exercise of divine efii-
ciency, but growth in grace results from spiritual nourish-
ment. In regeneration the Spirit works immediately ; in
sanctification he works through means. Hence the apostle
says : " Desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may
grow thereby." Holiness is a duty. Without it no man
shall see the Lord. Hence, in addition to faith in Jesus
Christ and repentance unto life, God requireth of us a "dil-
igent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communi-
cateth to us the benefits of redemption." These outward
means are God's ordinances, especially the word, sacraments
ftud prayer,

92 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

I. The Word.
By the word is meant the Bible. It is the rule of duty.
All questions, both of creed and conduct, are to be deter-
mined by it. To know what is true we are not to go to
church councils, creeds or catechisms, but to the Bible. To
know what is right we are not to consult private opinion or
public sentiment, but the Bible. It is given by inspiration
of God, and is therefore " profitable for doctrine, for re-
proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Do
we desire to learn the way of God more perfectly ? Then
the Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salva-
tion. Are we in heaviness through manifold temptations?
Then let us consider Him who endured such contradiction
of sinners against himself Are we faint-hearted ? Let us
turn to the promises. Are we growing cold and formal in
the service of Christ? Then the Epistles of Peter should
stir us up by putting us in remembrance. Have we to do
battle against the enemy of souls ? Then let us wield the
sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The Bible
reflects God's glory ; and beholding in it as in a glass the
glory of God, we are changed into the same image from
glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. The
word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of
spul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a dis-
cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. How is
the sanctifying influence of the word accounted for ? There
are three answers to this question.

1. Some say that the influence which the Bible exerts is
only the natural result of the presentation of moral truth to
the mind.

2. Lutherans say that there is an inherent virtue in the
word which, if not resisted, produces blessed results in those
to whom it is presented. Its influence is not due to the nat-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 93

ural force of truth, but tq the Spirit of God working in and
with it.

3. The Reformed doctrine is different from both the fore-
going views. The first view is not correct, inasmuch as the
presentation of the truth to the mind does not enable a man
to understand the truth, nor does it open his heart to the
reception of it. This is the work of the Spirit. The
second view is not correct, because it denies the personal
agency of the Spirit as separate and distinct from the word.
The doctrine of the Bible is that the word sanctifies by be-
ing made eflEicacious through the Spirit. The word may be
presented without the attending influence of the Spirit, for
it acts by no inherent power, and the Spirit works when and
where he pleases. The word must be attended by the eflS-
cacious influence of the Spirit, or it is preached in vain.
Hence the necessity of praying for the aid of the Holy
Ghost in order that we may study the Scriptures with
profit. Hence, too, the need of praying that God would
give his* word success, and that his Spirit would lead us into
all truth.

II. Sacraments.

Our Lord has enjoined upon his followers the observance
of two ordinances through which, as well as through the
word, he is pleased to communicate his grace. These ordi-
nances are the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Sup-
per. *' A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by
Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of
the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to be-
lievers,"* " The grace which is exhibited in or by the
sacraments rightly used is not conferred by any power in
them, neither doth the eflScacy of a sacrament depend upon
the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but
upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution,
■which contains, together with the precept authorizing the
* Shorter Catechism, Q. 92.

94 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."*
These statements express the idea of the sacraments enter-
tained by the Reformed Churches. They are opposed —

1. To the Roman Catholic doctrine. The Chu/ch of
Rome says that the sacraments contain the grace they sig-
nify, and convey it ex opere operato. As food has power to
support life, so baptism regenerates and the eucharist af-
fords spiritual nourishment without regard to the faith or
want of faith of those receiving the sacraments.

2. To the Lutheran view. Lutherans deny the ex opere
operato doctrine as taught by Romanists. They hold that
faith is necessary to the efficacy of the sacraments, but they
hold that when received in faith the sacraments convey
grace by an inherent virtue, just as they maintain that the
word sanctifies by an inherent virtue. The doctrine of our
Church is that both word and sacraments are made effica-
cious by the work of God's Spirit, and not by any inherent
power in themselves.

3. To the Zwinglian view. According to this viftw, the
sacraments cannot be properly called means of grace. They
are only symbolical modes of stating Scripture truth. The
doctrine of our standards is that the sacraments not only
represent, but that they seal and exhibit or apply to believers,
the benefits of Christ's redemption.

In studying this subject we are to guard against two ex-
tremes. First, we are to be careful not to undervalue the
sacraments or ignore the fact that they are channels of
grace ; secondly, we are to be careful not to regard them a3
channels of every grace, for they are sanctifying, but not
regenerating, ordinances.f Passing from these remarks on
the sacraments in general, let us consider .each of these or-
dinances separately.

* Confession of Faitl\ jap. xxvii., ^ 3.

f "The substance of this matter may be embodied in these two po-
Bitions: 1. That the Holy Spirit ordinarily employs the sacraments,

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 95

1. Baptism. — And here we are met by three inquiries:
1. The idea of baptism; 2. The subjects of baptism; 3.
The mode of baptism.

1. The idea of baptism. A Hindoo, let us suppose, ap-
plies to the missionary for baptism. Shall the missionary
take the ground that baptism is a regenerating ordinance,
and baptize him without making any inquiry respecting his
state of mind ? Or shall he take the ground that baptism
is the ordinance in which a profession of faith in Christ is
made, and satisfy himself that the person applying for bap-
tism is a Christian ? If he follows New Testament prece-
dent, he will adopt the latter course. The case supposed is
analogous to the instances of baptism recorded in the New
Testament. In this, and in all other cases of adult bap-
tism, it is clear, therefore, that baptism presupposes regen-
eration, and cannot be a regenerating agent. If baptism
ever regenerates, it nmst be in the case of infants. But we
concede freely to the Baptist denomination that the New Tes-
tament does not give a single unmistakable instance of in-
fant baptism. Baptismal regeneration is therefore discounte-
nanced by every instance of baptism recorded in the Bible.
Its only claim to be regarded as a doctrine of Scripture
when received by persons duly qualified and rightly prepared, as
means or instruments of conveying to them clearer views and more
lively and impressive conceptions of what he has done and revealed
in his word with respect to the provisions and arrangements of the
covenant of grace and their special application to men individually.
And, 2. That the Holy Spirit, acting in accordance with the princi-
ples and tendencies of our constitution, ordinarily employs the sac-
raments as means or instruments of increasing and strengthening
man's faith with reference to all its appropriate objects, and thereby
of imparting to them in greater abundance, all the spiritual blessings
which are connected with the lively and vigorous exercise of faith —
that is, all those subordinate blessings, as in a certain sense they may
be called, which accompany and flow from justification and regenera-
tion."— Cunningham's "Keformers and Theology of the Reforma-
tion," p. 287.

96 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

rests on a few isolated texts of Scripture, and these it can
be shown will not bear the interpretation which the advo-
cates of Sacraiuentarianism put upon them.

One of these passages is John iii. 5 : " Except a man be
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."

But it is not clear that " born of water " refers to bap-
tism ; and if it does, it is not clear that " kingdom of God"
means heaven. Another text is found in Titus iii. 5 :
*' Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of re-
generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here again
there is good reason to believe that no reference to baptism
is intended. The probable meaning is : " We are saved by
that washing which is regeneration, namely, the renewing
of the Holy Ghost."*

Baptism, being administered to adults on profession of
faith, is to them a sign and seal of regeneration, not as
effecting it, but as witnessing that it has been already effect-
ed. Regeneration and baptism are in this way closely re-
lated ideas, and this will explain such passages as the fol-
lowing : " Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins ;"
" Bepent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."

2. The subjects of baptism. The heathen just referred to
would be treated in the same way by a Presbyterian or a
Baptist missionary. Neither would baptize liitn except on
a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And
as the cases of adult baptism in the New Testament are
analogous to the one supposed, they need not be the occa-
sion of any difference of opinion (save as to the mode of
baptism) between Presbyterians and Baptists. It is agreed
that the converts to Christianity from Judaism or heathen-
ism are to be baptized on profession of faith. To this ex-
* Hodge, "Systeiuatic Theology," vol. iii., p. 596.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 97

tent Presbyterians are firm advocates of "believers' bap-
tism." But suppose that the heathen above referred to had
children? What then? Should the missionary baptize
them also? If he were a Presbyterian, he would; if ho
were a Baptist, he would not. And here we reach the real
ditference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves. The
question between us is simply whether the children of be-
lievers are entitled to baptism. In answering this question
two concessions are to be freely made. 1. That the New
Testament does not contain one clear case of infant bap-
tism. 2. That the doctrine of infant baptism does not rest
on a positive command of Christ, but is arrived at inferen-
tially. Neither of these concessions affects the case. It is
not strange that the New Testament makes no specific men-
tion of infant baptism. Let us illustrate : A Presbyterian
missionary goes to a heathen land to preach the gospel.
As the result of his preaching a heathen is converted. He
is baptized, and the fact is reported. But in reporting the
baptism the minister only wishes to emphasize the fact that
this heathen has made a profession of religion, that being
the important thing. If the convert has children, they are
likewise baptized, and he may or may not refer to it. If he
does refer to it, he will refer to it as a subordinate fact, and
say that the children were baptized or the household was
baptized. Now, the cases of baptism in the New Testament
were cases like the one supposed. And while it is not
strange that there is no typical case of infant baptism, like
that of Cornelius, it is more than likely that where the
sacred writers say that "he and all his" were baptized
they are recording as a subordinate fact the baptism of the
convert's children as well as of the convert himself. Nor is it
a valid argument against infant baptism that our Lord does
not command children to be baptized. He did not enjoin
the observance of the first day of the week as the Christian
Sabbath.
7

98 SmiMARY OF DOCTRINE.

We have not space enough to enter into an argument in
defence of infant baptism. These, however, are the princi-
ples which govern us in the matter.

(a) The Church of the Old Testament and the Church of
the New are one and the same Church.

(b) Children of believers were members of the church
under the Old Testament dispensation. They are entitled
to membership, therefore, in the Christian church, unless it
can be shown that this right no longer exists. The dif-
ference between us and the Baptists is a question con-
cerning the burden of proof. We aflfirm the doctrine of
infant church membership because it cannot be shown that
it is contrary to New Testament teaching. They deny the
doctrine of infant church membership because it cannot be
proved by direct testimony of the New Testament.

(c) If we are right in claiming for children under the
New Testament the privileges which they enjoyed un-
der the Old until it is proved that those privileges have
been revoked, we are right in claiming that they are entitled
to baptism ; for if they are entitled to membership, they
cannot reasonably be denied that which is the sign of mem-
bership. The view we have taken furnishes a natural ex-
planation of those passages which refer to the baptism of
Lydia and her household, of the household of Stephanas, of
the jailer and all his. It is possible that there were no in-
fants in these households, but the probabilities are the other
w^ay ; and the references are just such as a missionary at the
present day would make if he were reporting the conversion
of a heathen and the subsequent baptism of himself and
his family.

3. The mode of baptism. Baptism is a washing with
water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
How much water is used and how it is applied are matters
of small moment. Baptism may be performed by immer-

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 09

sion, affusion or sprinkling. Baptists claim that baptism
means immersion, and that sprinkling is not baptism. For
this position, however, they have no authority.

(a) The use of the words " bapto " and " baptizo " does
not warrant it. These words are used where Nebuchadnez-
zar is said to have been " wet with the dew of heaven,"
where the washing of the hands, of pots and cups and
tables (couches) is spoken of, and in Mark vii. 4, where
we read : " And when they come from market, except they
wash, they eat not."

(6) The use of the Greek prepositions translated "in,"
" into," " out of," does not sustain the Baptist position.
Philip and the eunuch went down, both of them, " into " the
water. But this does not necessarily mean more than that
they went down to the stream and stood beside it. If it
necessarily conveys the idea of immersion, we must hold
that Philip was immersed too, for they both went down
"into" the water.

(c) The cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament
do not sustain the Baptist position. Three thousand con-
verts were baptized on the day of Pentecost. Considering
the short time in which this was done, and the scarcity of
water in Jerusalem, it is hardly possible that they were
immersed. The account of the baptism of Cornelius sug-
gests the idea that water was brought for the purpose.
" Can any man forbid water ?" The Philippian jailer vvas
baptized at midnight and in prison. It is highly improb-
able that he was immersed.

(d) The Baptist position is not supported by the remain-
ing references to baptism in the New Testament. The Isra-
elites were baptized in the Red Sea, but they were not im-
mersed. We receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but
we are not immersed in the Spirit. He is poured out upon
us.

2, The Lord's Supper. — There are four leading, views

100 . SUM3IARY OF DOCTRINE.

in respect to this sacrament, the Roman Catholic, the
Lutheran, the Zwinglian and the Reformed.

1. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that by the act
of the officiating priest the elements of bread and wine in
the eucharist — or, as they call it, the mass — are chajiged into
the body and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of tran-
sul)stantiation. The scriptural arguments in support of this
are John vi. 53: "Then said Jesus unto them, Verily, verily
I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ;" and 1 Cor. xi.
24 : " This is my body.'"*" The mass is both a sacrament and
a sacrifice. As a sacrament it imparts spiritual nourish-
ment ex opere operato. But as a sacrifice it is a satisfaction
for sin. Romanism is a huge, though consistent (and this
is more than can be said of high Anglicanism), perversion
of Bible truth. It makes the minister a priest, the memo-
rial meal a sacrifice ; and instead of teaching that Christ was
once (once for all) offered to bear the sins of many, it makes
the satisfaction for sin depend on the repetition of that
sacrifice in the mass.

2. The Lutherans deny that the substance of the ele-
ments is changed, but they believe in the corporeal pres-
ence of Christ in, under and with the elements. This is
consubstantiation. They hold that faith on the part of the
communicant is necessary in order that grace may be re-
ceived, but they hold, likewise, that, as in the case of bap-
tism, the eucharist has an inherent virtue.

3. The Zwinglian view regards the Lord's Supper sim-
ply as symbolical, and as a means of grace only as it is
another mode of presenting truth to the mind.

4. The Reformed doctrine is opposed, to all the forego-
ing. It is opposed to the Zwinglian view, inasmuch as it
teaches that the Lord's Supper is a channel of grace. It is
opposed to the Lutheran, inasmuch as it teaches that thia

* See the commentaries on these verses.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 101

grace is conveyed not by any inherent virtue in the ordi-
nance, but only as the Holy Ghost uses it for our sanctifi-
cation ; and of course it is still more opposed to the Roman
Catholic view.

Our Shorter Catechism says : " The Lord's Supper is a
sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and
wine according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed
forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and
carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body
and blood, with ail his benefits to their spiritual nourish-
ment and growth in grace." *

Looking at this ordinance as it is expounded in the sym-
bols of the Reformed Church, and especially of our own, we
may distinguish four leading ideas.

(a) The memorial idea. " Do this in remembrance of
me." The love which brought salvation and the way by
which salvation came are to be kept fresh in our minds by
the periodic observance of the ordinance which commemo-
rates Christ's death.

(b) The symbolical idea. As baptism teaches by sym-
bol the doctrine of depravity and the necessity of regener-
ation, so the impressive ordinance of the Supper speaks to
us of guilt and of the atonement. A Socinian theology has
no adequate explanation of the eucharist.

(c) The social idea. This service is a memorial meal.
It is the " Lord's table " which is spread, the " Lord's
Supper " of which we partake. It is a communion of Chris-
tians with their Lord and with one another. The followers
of Christ are brethren, and he is the Elder Brother of them
all.

(c?) The sacramental idea. There is no word which ex-
actly expresses the thought which we wish to express under
this head. High Churchmen speak of tlie sacramental prin-
ciple, but by it they mean to convey the idea that the sign
* Shorter Catechism, Q. 96.

102 SV^IMARY OF DOCTRINE.

and the thing signified always accompany each other. We
use the word sacramental in this connection because it
serves ])etter than any other to express the thought that
this ordinance, besides being a memorial service and sym-
bolical of precious truth, is really a means of grace to those
who receive it in faith, that in a real, though not in a bod-
ily sense, Christ is present, and that in a spiritual, though
not in a corporal manner, believers do feed upon him to
their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. It is a
mistake to suppose that the Lord's Supper is only a memo-
rial service or that it is merely a symbolical ordinance.
The language used respecting it in the New Testament for-
bids our taking such a low view of it. Rejecting the Ro-
man Catholic and Lutheran interpretations put upon the
words of our Lord, it is nevertheless true that he did say,
" This is my body," " This cup is the new testament in my
blood." Remember, too, that Paul uses this strong lan-
guage in regard to the eucharist: "Wherefore whosoever
shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord un-
worthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord. But let him examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation (judg-
ment) to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor.
xi. 27-29. We read also, 1 Cor. x. 16, "The cup of bless-
ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which he brake, is it not the commu-
nion of the body of Christ ?" * In this ordinance we not
only remember Christ — we receive him.f

* For remarks on these passages, see Bannerman, " The Church of
(Jhrist," vol. ii., p. 13S.

f " Christ is really present to his people in this sacrament, not
liodily, but in spirit, not in the sense of local nearness, but of eflBca-
cious operation. They receive him not with the mouth, but by
faith ; they receive his flesh and blood, not a;; flesh, not as material
particles, not as human life, not the supernatural influence of hifi

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 10^

The Lord's table is spread for the Lord's people. None
but Christians should come to it, and none who are Christ's
should be kept from it. Hence, in admitting persons to
sealing ordinances, it is not right to require them to sub-
scribe'to an elaborate creed, or to exact from them more
than a credible profession of faith.* Men cannot read the
heart, and Christ does not recognize a vicarious conscience.

Our Directory for Worship says :t " Children born within
the pale of the visible Church, and dedicated to God in
baptism, are under the inspection and government of the
Church, and are to be taught to read and repeat the cate-
chism, the apostles' creed and the Lord's Prayer. They
are to be taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God and to
obey the Lord Jesus Christ. And when they come to years
of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and
steady and have knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they
ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to
come to the Lord's Supper."

glorified body in heaven, but his body as broken and his blood as
shed. The union thus signified and effected is not a corporeal union,
not a mixture of substances, but a spiritual and mystical union due
to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of this sacrament
as a means of grace is not in the sign, nor in the service, nor m the
minister, nor in the word, but in the attending influence of the Holy
Q host."— Hodge's Systematic Theology, vol. iii., p. 650.

* "The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the Pres-
byterian Church has always held it, does not constitute the pastor, eld-
ers or congregation judges of the actual conversion of the applicant,
but, on the contrary, lays much responsibility on the applicant him-
self. The minister and kirk-session must be satisfied as to his com-
petent knowledge, credible profession and consistent walk. They
must determine negatively that there is no reason for pronouncing
him not to be a Christian, but they do not undertake the responsibil-
ity of positively judging of his conversion."— Candlish, quoted by
Hodge in " Outlines of Theology," p. 516.

t Chap, ix., I 1.

104 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

III. Prayer.

God is our Father. He loves us ; he is able aud williug
to help us. We have access to him, and he has promised to
hear us wheu we come to him in the name of Christ. We
are invited to come boldly unto the throne of grace. We
are assured that the Spirit maketh intercession in us, and
that Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us. It is
natural, then, that the child of God should seek commu-
nion with his Father in heaven. Saved by his grace, kept
by his power, led by his Spirit, it would be strange if the
Christian did not rejoice in the privilege of going to God
with the language of adoration, thanksgiving, confession
and petition on his lips.

And as prayer is the natural expression of religious feel-
ing, so we might naturally expect that the religious life
would be promoted by a prayerful habit. The face of Mo-
ses shone when he came down from the mount where he
had talked with God. Nothing will impart radiance and
beauty to Christian character like communion with God.
He who would be God-like must walk with God as Enoch
did. He who would resist the temptations of the world must
descend to the daily duties of life from the mountain-top of
prayer.

But it would be a great mistake to regard prayer as only
a means of heightening our religious feelings and convic-
tions, or to value it only for its reflex influence upon our-
selves. One element in prayer is petition. God's blessings
are given in answer to prayer. God says, " I will be in-
quired of by the house of Israel." Our Saviour says,
*' Ask," " seek," " knock." He tells us that earthly parents
are not so willing to give good gifts unto their children as
God is to give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Paul
says, " Pray without ceasing." " In everything by prayer
and thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 105

God." We cannot complain if we lack the blessings which
we have never craved. The Westminster Confession of
Faith says, " Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special
part of religious worship, is by God required of all men ;
and that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name
of the Son, by the help of the Spirit, according to his will,
with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith,
love and perseverance."*

The subject of prayer presents difficulties to some minds.

1. It is asked how the unqualified promise of our Saviour,
" If ye shall ask anything in my name I will do it," is to be
reconciled with the fact that so many prayers are not an-
swered, and with the additional fact that, in the nature of the
case, all prayers cannot be answered, as, for instance, when on
the eve of battle both armies pray for victory. In replying
to this question we must inquire who are meant by " ye "
in the passage referred to. Does Christ pledge himself in
this promise to answer every request which may be made,
without regard to the persons who make it or the spirit in
which it is preferred? Surely not. The promise is to hia
disciples, and must be limited in its application to Chris-
tians. But do Christians desire that their requests should
be unconditionally granted ? Does a Christian so far forget
himself as to presume to know better than God what he
needs ? Surely not. Then the words of our Saviour are
to be explained by the words of John : " This is the confi-
dence that we have in him, that if we ask anything accord-
ing to his will, he heareth us." 1 John v. 14. It is a great
blessing that God does not answer all our prayers.

2. It is said that since the physical world is under the
control of law it is irrational to pray for rain in dry
weather, for a prosperous voyage or for recovery from sick-
ness. To this we reply that a theory which makes God
the slave of his own laws, which represents him as leaving
* Cap. xxi., I 3.

106 SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE.

the universe under the exclusive control of physical causes,
is unscriptural. We believe that " God's works of provi-
dence are his most iioly, wise and powerful preserving and
governing all his creatures and all their actions." Believing
this, we believe that the area of prayer is as wide as that of
our wants. Nor are we doubtful respecting the efficacy of
prayer because we do not understand how it is answered.
Whether God answers prayer by a direct exercise of divine
power, or whether he does so by means of second causes, it
matters not.* " Prayer and the answer of prayer are simply
the preferring of a request upon one side and the compli-
ance with that request upon the other. Man applies ; God
complies. Man asks a favor ; God bestows it." f This is
enough.

3. It is urged again that if God has foreordained whatsoever
comes to pass, prayer is unnecessary, since it cannot change
his purpose. But God's purpose is all-comprehensive. He
foreordains the prayer as well as the answer to the prayer.
He has no more decreed the one than the other.

* "I believe that God commonly answers prayer by natural means
appointed for this purpose from the very beginning, when he gave
to mind and matter tlieir laws, and arranged the objects with these
laws for the accomplishment of his wise and beneficent ends, for the
encouragement of virtue and the discouragement of vice, and among
others to provide an answer to the acceptable petitions of his people.
God, in answer to prayer, may restore the patient by an original
strength of constitution or by the well-timed application of a remedy.
The believer is in need of a blessing, and he asks it; and he finds
that the God who created the need and prompted the prayer lias pro-
vided the means of granting what he needs." — Dr. McCosh in Con-
temporary Review for October, 1872.

•) Chalmers, quoted by Dr. Hodge in ** Systematic Theology," vol.
Lii., p. 604

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 107

THE FUTURE STATE.

The question of destiny is now to be considered. It is
appointed unto men once to die, and after death— what?
Before an answer is given to this question, notice must be
taken of certain great events which are predicted in Scrip-
ture, and the occurrence of which will bring about the final
consummation. These are, 1. The second advent ; 2. The
resurrection ; 3. The judgment.

1. The Second Advent.— The Church as Christ's army
is to push its conquests until Jesus is owned the world over
as King of kings and Lord of lords ; then the Lord will
come. That he is to come in person is abundantly taught
in Scripture. He left the world with the promise that he
would return: " For as often as ye eat this bread and drink
this cup, ye do show the Lord's death, till he come." The
disciples who watched his ascension heard these words from
the angels: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up
into heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go into heaven." The writings of Paul abound in allusions
to " the appearing of our Lord," ''that day," "his coming,"
" the day of Jesus Christ ;" and the Apocalypse closes with
the prayer which is so often on Christian lips : " Even so,
come, Lord Jesus, come quickly."

2. The Resurrection.— The Scriptures clearly teach
that there is to be a general resurrection of the righteous
and the wicked, and they associate this event with the sec-
ond coming of Christ : " Many of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake, some to* everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan. xii. 2.
" Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming in the which
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall

108 SUiUMARY OF DOCTRINE.

come forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection
of life ; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection
of damnation. ' John v. 28, 29. " I saw the dead, small and
great, stand before God : and the books were opened, and
another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the
dead were judged out of those things which were written in
the book, according to their works. And the sea gave up
the dead which were in it, and death and hell gave up the
dead which were in them." Rev. xx. 12, 13. " We who are
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep. For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel and with the trump of God; and the
dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds
to meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall we ever be with
the Lord." 1 Thess. iv. 15, 17.

3. The Judgment. — Besides the doctrines of the second
advent and the resurrection of the body, the Scriptures
teach that there is to be a final judgment, and there are good
reasons for believing that these three events are to be contem-
poraneous. The following are among the leading passages
which refer to this subject : " For he hath appointed a day
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that
man whom he hath ordained." Acts xvii. 31. " We must
all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every
one may receive the things done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Cor. v. 10.
" The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father,
with his angels : and then he shall reward every man ac-
cording to his works." Matt. xvi. 27. " When the Son of
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with
him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and
before liiin shall be gathered all nations; and he shall
separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth the

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 109

sheep from the goats ; and he shall set the sheep on the right
hand, but the goats on the left," etc. Matt. xxv. 31-o3.
"Then Cometh the end." "The heavens shall pass away
with a great noise, and the elements shall me t with ervent
heat; the earth also and the works that are therem shall be

burned up." , , i ^

We do not know how near or how remote the end may be.
We do know, however, that when Christ comes those who
are alive shall be changed and all who are n the.r graves
shall come forth ; and we know, moreover, that both quick
and dead are to appear before the judgment seat ot Cl>r.st

In considering the subject treated in this lesson we shall
speak first of the state of the soul betwee.i death and the
judgn>ent, and, second, of its condition after the ju.lgment.

I. Between Death and the Judgment.
The doctrine of our Church on the condition of men be-
tween death and the resurrection is thus expressed :u the
Westminster Confession of Faith:* "The bod.es o, men
after death return to dust and see corruption, bi,t then-
souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal sub-
sistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The
souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness
are received into the highest heavens, where they behol.l
the face of God in ligbt and glory, waiting for the full re-
demption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are
cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter
darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day Be-
sides these two places for souls separated from their bodie ,
the Scripture acknowledgeth none." Tins view is opposed
1 To the doctrine of the "sleep of the soul; 2._ To that
of "Hades;" 3. To the doctrine of "purgatory. l.et us

"tTHE^ 't^?o. the Sot.E.-Archbishop Whately has
•* Cap xxxii., ^ 1.

no smniABY of doctrine.

given the weight of his infliieuce to the revolting idea that
tlie soul falls into a state of unconsciousness at death, and
remains in this condition until the resurrection. It is true
that the Bible does speak of death as a sleep and of Chris-
tians as those " who sleep in Jesus ;" and were there nothing
positive on the subject in the Scriptures, we might think,
perhaps, that the reference is to the soul as well as to the
body. But it is difficult to understand how those who ac-
knowledge the authority of the Bible can entertain this
opinion. The dying Stephen saw the heavens opened and
Jesus standing at the right hand of God. His last words
were : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Jesus said to the
penitent thief: " To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
Paul desired to " depart and be with Christ, which is far
better." To depart and remain unconscious for two thou-
sand years would not have been far better. Christians
have died in every age of the Church, and are dying every
day, in the confident expectation of entering heaven and of
seeing Jesus. We shall need more evidence than Whately
has furnished to assure us that they have all been de-
ceived.*

2. Hades. — This doctrine has always had its supporters,
and it has many advocates at the present day. Briefly

* "Here, for example, is a pas-age fioiii David Brainerd's last
days : ' Lord's day, September 27, 1747. — I was born on a Sabbath
day, and I liave a reason to tliink I was new born on a Sabbath day ;
and I hope I shall die on this Sabbath day.' ' I am almost in eternity ;
I long to be there.' ' I long to be in heaven, praising and glorifying
God with the holy angels.' October 6 he lay as if he were dying.
lie was heard to utter in broken whispers such expressions as ihese :
'He will come; he will not tarry; I shall soon be in glory; I shall
Boon glorify God with the angels.' But Archbishop Whately thinks
that for a hundred and thirteen years Brainerd has been utterly un-
conscious, and that all these anticipations are not to be fulfilled for
perhaps several thousand years." — Adams' " Evenings with the
Doctrines," p. 301.

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. HI

stated, it is that there is a place intermediate between
heaven and hell which is the abode of the dead during the
period between death and the resurrection. The blessed
dead go to Paradise, where they are in a state of happiness,
though it is far inferior to that which is in store for them in
heaven. The impenitent dead are in another region of
Hades, where they await in misery the judgment of the
great day and the infliction of the punishment of hell.

On this it is enough to remark that the foregoing doctrine
is in harmony with the teaching of our standards in so far
as it affirms that the righteous will not experience the high-
est blessedness until the resurrection. But it is at variance
with them in affirming that there is a middle state or place
which is the abode of departed spirits between death and
the resurrection. The Bible knows nothing of this middle
state or place of abode. Christ we know is in heaven, and
those who die in Christ are with him.

3. Purgatory.— The doctrine of the Church of Kome
respecting the future state is embraced in its teachings re-
specting heaven, hell and purgatory. Heaven is the place
of highest blessedness, and is the abode of three classes of
persons : first, of the Old Testament saints who were de-
tained in Hades as spirits in prison until the resurrection of
Christ, when they were led out in triumph ; second, of the
few who attain perfection in this life; third, of those Chris-
tians who die without being perfect, and who are required
to make satisfaction for their sins and to be purified by en-
during the pains of purgatory. Hell is the place of end-
less torment, and is the abode of all heretics and of those
who die in mortal sin. The doctrine of purgatory may be
stated as follows : The atonement of Christ only delivers men
from eternal punishment. Temporal punishments, and espe-
cially the pains of purgatory in the next world, still remain
to be endured as satisfaction for sin. The Church of Rome
has always claimed the right of regulating the kind and de-

112 SUM^^ARY OF DOCTRINE.

gree of this punishment, and she has done this in three ways :
(a) By indulgences. The doctrine of the Church of Rome is
that the *' temporal pain, owing to the justice of God, either
before or after death, . . . may be remitted by an application
of the merits of Christ and of the saints, out of the trea-
sury of the Church, the dispensation of which treasure is
given to the bishops." A man might take his choice of do-
ing penance or buying an indulgence. (6) By the sacra-
ment of penance. Mortal sins, if not forgiven, render men
liable to the pains of hell. To be forgiven they must be
confessed to a priest. He then absolves from the penalty of
eternal death, and prescribes the penance which must be
performed as a temporal satisfaction, (c) By the mass.
This is a propitiatory sacrifice, and avails for those for whom
it is intended by the officiating priest, whether they be on
earth or in purgatory. Thus it will be seen that this doctrine
places the destinies of men in the hands of the Romish
priesthood ; and it can readily be inferred that it is a source
of great power and emolument. But it is as false as it is
pernicious.

(a.) There is not a syllable in the Bible which lends it the
least support. It is true that our Lord said the sin against
the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven either in this world or
in the world to come. He did not mean, however, that some
sins may be forgiven in the next world, but only that this
sin shall never be forgiven. The Scriptures teach that
nothing that defileth shall enter heaven, and it is not claimed
that men reach a state of sinless perfection in this life. But
these facts do not prove the doctrine of purgatory, nor are
they enough to show that the Christian Ccuiies the infirmi-
ties of his sinful nature with him into the next world ; we
reach a different conclusion from these facts. For since it
is true that men do not attain to sinless perfection in this
life, and that there is nothing sinful in heaven, and that
Christians go to heaven when they die, we conclude that the

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 113

"souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holi-
ness."

(6.) The doctrine is based on a false assumption. Those
who maintain it assume that Christ has not made a complete
satisfaction for sin. Hence there is great similarity between
the doctrine of purgatory and the creed of a certain class
of Universalists. The latter reject the atonement, and say
that God always punishes men for their sins. Men who lead
wicked lives, they say, must expect to be miserable in the
next world. But the end of punishment is the good of the
offender, and the result of it will be universal restoration to
holiness and heaven. What the Universalists of this class
believe respecting all men the Roman Catholics believe re-
specting all who go to purgatory. The answer to both is
the same. We cannot make satisfaction for own sins, and
we need not, for Christ has borne our sins in his own body
on the tree.

(c.) The doctrine of purgatory contradicts the word of
God. The Bible says that there is no condemnation to the
Christian, that he hath eternal life, that when he dies he is
blessed, and that for him to depart is to be with Christ.

II. After the Judgment.
The statements of Scripture in respect to the judgment
are very explicit. Thus, we read, " The angels which kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judg-
ment of the great day." Jude 6. " Then shall the King
Bay unto them on his right hand. Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world. . . . Then shall he say also unto
them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into ev-
erlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . . .
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but
the righteous into life eternal " Matt. xxiv. 34-46. In

114 SU3IMARY OF DOCTRINE.

these passages the Scripture doctrine of hell and heaven is
unfolded — to wit : that the wicked shall share the fate of
the devil and the fallen angels and be the subjects of eter-
nal suffering, and that the righteous shall be welcomed into
the enjoyment of everlasting happiness. Let us state the
doctrine more fully.

1. Hell. — The teaching of Scripture and the belief of
the Christian Church is that the impenitent are punished in
the next world, that the punishment is everlasting, and that
it consists in pain. This doctrine is opposed (a) by the
Universal ists, properly so called, who deny that any punish-
ment awaits men in the next world ; (6) by the Restoration-
ists, who admit the fact of future punishment, but deny that
it is everlasting; (c) by the Annihilationists, who agree
with the orthodox view in respect to the fact and the dura-
tion of future punishment, but deny that it consists in pos-
itive suffering or pain.

(a.) The Universalists. The Bible says that God is not
willing that any should perish, and that he is the Saviour of
all men, especially of those who believe. It says, too, that
Christ " tasted death for every man," and that he died
" that the world through him might be saved." We cannot
discuss the meaning of these and similar passages which
are such favorites with the Universalists, but we know that
they do not teach that all men go to heaven, for the Bible
distinctly asserts that some do go to hell. " These shall
go away into everlasting punishment ;" " The Lord Jesus
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
flaming fire, taking vengeance on them who know not God."
To say, as Ballou says, that the punishment spoken of in
the Bible refers exclusively to sufferings endured in this
life is simply absurd. Better renounce the authority of the
Bible at once than trifle in this way with its most solemn
facts.

(6.) The Restorationists. A great many, probably the

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE. 115

greater number, of those who belong to the XJniversalist de-
nomination in this country admit that there is a punish-
ment in store for the wicked in the next world, but they
deny that it is eternal. They support their position by
saying that God is too benevolent to allow his creatures to
suffer eternally ; that it would be derogatory to God's maj-
esty for evil to have a place in his universe through all eter-
nity ; that punishment is for the good of the offender and
must result in the sinner's restoration ; and, finally, that the
word aionios does not mean everlasting but only a limited
period. To which it is enough to reply that we are not
competent to say what God may or may not do ; that there is
no argument against the continuance of evil in the world
which would not apply as well to its introduction and to its
present existence ; that the Bible does not intimate that the
punishment of the wicked is a remedial measure ; and that
if the words used to express the duration of punishment do
not teach that it is eternal it is difiicult to tell how the idea
of eternity could have been expressed. The same word is
used to express the duration of punishment which, in a co-
ordinate clause of the same verse, is used to express the du-
ration of happiness. " We must either admit the endless
misery of hell or give up the endless happiness of heaven."
(c.) The Annihilationists. The argument mainly em-
ployed by this class of men is based on the alleged meaning
of the words " life " and "death." Put into syllogistic form,
it comes to this: Life always and only means existence;
death, non-existence. But the punishment of sin is death ;
therefore the punishment of sin is non-existence, or extinc-
tion of being. It must be admitted that if the word " death "
is correctly defined in this argument it overthrows the doc-
trine of eternal punishment, but it must also be admitted
that it makes nonsense at the same time of hialf the passages
in which the word occurs. But death, as descriptive of the
punishment of the lost, does not mean annihilation or extinc-

116 SU3I3fARY OF DOCTRINE.

tion of being, for there are degrees of punishment, but no
degree of death in the sense referred to. One stone is as
dead as another. Death does not mean extinction of being,
for the punishment of the wicked is torment : " And the
devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and
shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. . . .
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This la
the second death." Rev. xx. 10, 14.

2. Heaven. — In answer to the question, What benefits
do believers receive from Christ at the resurrection ? the
Shorter Catechism says : " At the resurrection, believers,
being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and
acquitted in the day of judgment, and made perfectly
blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity." If
the Bible fails to gratify our curiosity by answering all
our inquiries respecting heaven, it does not leave us
altogether in the dark. We know that this mortal shall
put on immortality, and that the body of the believer is to
be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body. The Chris-
tian shall gee Christ, shall behold his glory, shall be like
him, shall be welcomed into the joy of his Lord. Faith
will become sight and hope fruition. Now he knows in
part, but then shall he know even as also he is known. He
will sin no more, sorrow no more. His inheritance is incor-
ruptible, undefiled and fadeth not away. Tears are wiped
away from all faces. Entering heaven, the weary finds rest,
the wanderer a home, and the pilgrim leaves his tent for a
city that hath foundations. Earth^s sinning Christians shall
wear white robes. Earth's sorrowing disciples shall waken
notes of joy from harps of gold.

>1